Demystifying Determinism

[Jarhyn]

Dererministic systems are not predictable, except wherein they have statistical generalizations which messily but inaccurately describe forward systemic operation.

They are dictable. Note the lack of the "pre".

SOME Deterministic systems have correlation on some level between past and future that can be worked out at a smaller and faster scale than that of the effect itself, and of those we can again only messily and inaccurately do this from the inside.

As such, while we can generalize inaccurate probabilities based on the known failures of our model, we cannot really predict.

Our predictions, and the probabilities in them, are illusions!

And when our predictions are illusions which in them contain an image that conforms to the actual future, we call that "a will that is free". And when that image that conforms to the future is "the will to decide for oneself", we call that "free will".

 

[Kylie]

Option A: 12%
Option B 48%
Option C: 40%

These probabilities, which are always computed while the outcome is still unknown, would be identical in all three models.

After the outcome is known to be Option B, all three of the probabilities would be identical to

Option A: 0%
Option B: 100%
Option C: 0%

The only difference between the first set and the second set is certain knowledge of the outcome.

This is correct, as I pointed out earlier. Kyl;ie can’t legitimately use these probability estimates.

Again, you are using the old, "If we Humans can't know it, it isn't there" argument.

An omniscient being with perfect knowledge of the universe would be able to figure it out, so the claim that each option must have a non-zero probability before the "choice" was made is wrong.

But I’ve already addressed this. Did you read my post on omniscient prediction?

I showed that if an omniscient predictor existed who knew infallibly everything you would ever do, that still would not mean that you HAVE TO DO those things. This has been demonstrated as a matter of logic.

So I could do something different to what he INFALLIBLY KNEW I would do?

Then he's not infallible, is he?

Given that so far as we know, there are no omniscient predictors, we are left with humans and fallible knowledge. Probability is a measure of our ignorance. The only 100 percent probabilities are posterior (after the fact). Marvin has given you the correct probabity estimates no matter what metaphysics you subscribe to.

Irrelevant.

 

[Kylie]

Let me ask Kylie a different question. If the future is set in stone, as it is in the completely static 4D model of Minkowski, why does that preclude us from having free will?

I'm not familiar with the "static 4D model of Minkowski".

But yes, I believe that if the future is set in stone, it does prevent us from having free will. As I have explained countless times now, true free will means that when we make a choice, we have several different options, each of which has a non-zero probability. Like such:

Option A: 12%
Option B 48%
Option C: 60%

If the future is set in stone, then one outcome is inevitable. This requires that it have a probability of 100%. So we'd see something more like this:

Option A: 0%
Option B: 100%
Option C: 0%

And, let me take the opportunity to say that the compatibilist model would result in this:

Option A: 12%
Option B 100%
Option C: 60%

Since a probability of more than 100% is nonsensical, this can't be true. For this reason, I reject the compatibilist idea.

Probability is just a way to handle limited knowledge of the future.

However, in a completely deterministic universe, it is theoretically possible to have ALL knowledge of the future. So let's not just look at this from a limited Human's point of view, because that isn't an accurate view of the reality you are proposing. Let's look at it from some omniscient being's point of view.

Imagine that some time in the near future, Elon Musk throws a big party to watch the Melbourne Cup at his new base on Mars.

Due to the distance from Earth, and the speed of light, his guests can place bets on the outcome after the actual race is over. That the result has already become known to people in Melbourne isn't important; It doesn't change the odds Elon's bookie offers, because as far as the people on Mars are concerned, the result is still a matter of probabilities.

The people on Mars can even decide that they're bored of horse racing, and can instead use their TV to watch someone at the racecourse bar choosing what to drink. They can watch him choose between beer and champagne, and not one of them can guess which he was going to choose - even though by the time they see him choosing, he has already finished his drink and gone home. The fact that the choice was made in the past matters not one iota; They nevertheless cannot assign 100% odds to one drink or another. Choosing still happens, even in the past, which we all (I assume) agree is completely unalterable. Odds and probabilities still make sense, and nothing can be shown to be inevitable, even though it's an event that has already taken place, and therefore cannot be changed in any way.

Interesting analogy, but it is still limited to a Human point of view, the limitations of which can be eliminated, as I've shown. That omniscient being, being fully aware of some past state of the universe in exact detail can calculate the state of the universe at any point in the future. After all, you claim it's a purely deterministic universe, so it's simply a matter of running the needed calculations and figuring out the answer. So he could be at Musk's party on Mars and know the answer. He would even know the answer before he left for mars. He'd know the result of the race even before the Earth was formed! So your analogy doesn't exactly work.

Then why aren't we surrounded by lottery billionaires?

Because people aren't omniscient beings.

You seem to think that if it CAN be done, then Humans should be able to do it right now. Where did you get this idea?

 

[Kylie]

Again, you are using the old, "If we Humans can't know it, it isn't there" argument.

No, it's a "If we humans can't know, it can't matter to us" argument.

The old "bury your head in the sand" technique...

An omniscient being with perfect knowledge of the universe would be able to figure it out, so the claim that each option must have a non-zero probability before the "choice" was made is wrong.

Only if such a being exists.

None do.

The claim that we should place the opinions of imaginary beings above our own experiences is not only wrong, but bizarre.

Irrelevant. IN THEORY it can be done. There is nothing that renders it impossible, only extremely difficult.

 

[Kylie]

A choice requires multiple options with non-zero probability

No, it doesn't. A choice requires multiple options. Period. The end.

"Probabilities", being imaginary, are not required for any thing.

All that is required for "choice" is "one or more things go in, a subset of one of those things pops out."

Again the old, "We have to pretend mathematics doesn't exist for my argument to make any sense" technique.

I could make a coffee and leave out the coffee and it still wouldn't be as weak as this.

 

[Kylie]

You're talking about a concept flexing around information.

No, I'm talking about a part of a system flexing around another part of a system as a part of the overall function. That the system does this with no variation, figuratively inflexibly, does not invalidate the literal flexibility of it's parts.

Still meaningless technobabble.

 

[Kylie]

Well, here we are, watching the other people in the restaurant browse the menu and then place their order. Are we having an illusion?

The illusion is that the people think they are making choices when they are not.

But we're not them. We're watching them as they browse the menu and then place their order. They are performing a logical operation called "choosing". Choosing inputs multiple options, such as those listed on the restaurant menu, then applies some criteria for comparing those options, and then selects a single dinner order that they then communicate to the waiter. The waiter takes their order to the kitchen and comes back with their chosen dinner and the bill.

It cannot be denied that choosing is actually happening, right there in front of us, and we are not having any illusions.

You are asserting that two contradictory statements agree with each other.

Each customer in the restaurant is choosing for themselves what they will order, according to their own tastes and dietary goals.
1. Because the choice is their own, it is free will.
2. Because the choice is reliably caused, it is deterministic.
Can you prove that either of these claims is false?
If both are true, then they cannot be contradictory.

It's not a choice at all! How many times do I need to say this before you actually see it?

How many times do I need to drag you to this restaurant before you actually see it?

A choice requires multiple options with non-zero probability. If one particular outcome is inevitable, then one outcome has 100% probability and all others have 0% probability.

There are 50 dinners on the menu. When they open the menu, each dinner has a 2% probability of being chosen. None of the options will have 0% or 100%. They all start out at 2%. Now, if we learn that certain customers have food allergies and others are vegan, then we can adjust our probabilities to 0% for certain meals. But without that knowledge every option has a probability of 2%.

Then the outcome is not inevitable and can't be the result of purely deterministic forces. Otherwise some being with perfect knowledge about the state of the universe at a point BEFORE the order was placed could perform the required calculations and determine what would be ordered, thus eliminating all but one of the outcomes.

Well, an omniscient being, such as God, or Laplace's Daemon, or the guy's wife, could theoretically tell us what he would inevitably order for dinner. And after they tell us, we can adjust that option's probability to 100%. But they won't tell us.

They won't even tell our customer. So, until he starts considering the different items listed, and adjusting the probabilities himself, until he finds the perfect dinner for tonight, he won't know either. After choosing his dinner, he and we and the waiter will all know which option had the 100% probability. But not before that.

And our knowledge will come from the choosing, not from a prediction (not unless his wife whispers it to us in advance).

As you can see, the choosing had to happen in order to know which dinner was inevitable.

And you seem incapable of seeing that a deterministic universe is completely predictable in theory.

If the customer could simply predict his choice then he wouldn't have bothered going through the process of choosing. But he could not predict his choice. So, his only way of knowing what his choice would be was by considering the different items on the menu in terms of his personal tastes and dietary goals, and selecting the option that seemed best at the time.

His choosing had to happen or he would have no dinner at all. It was unavoidable.

You are locked into that one single course of action, but you can still do anything you want. But you won't.

What you've overlooked is that my "want" will also be set in stone, such that determinism will never compel me to do anything that I do not already want to do. I will actually do what I want, and since I want to order the chicken, I will.

The only thing that I am "locked into" is doing exactly what I wanted to do. Thus, determinism poses no threat to free will.

So you will inevitably do one thing, and you will inevitably believe that you want that thing. Doesn't change the fact that you couldn't have done any differently. The thing you will inevitably do has a probability of 100% precisely because it's inevitable. Therefore, all other options you think are possible really have a probability of 0% and are actually IMpossible.

The thing about a possibility is that it remains a possibility even if it never happens. If it is inevitable that I will choose the chicken, then I will choose the chicken, even though I could have chosen the steak. Please note that "I chose the chicken, even though I could have chosen the steak" is a true statement in both its parts.

Oh my God, I could bang my head against a brick wall and make more progress.

I respond to your claims to show you why I think they are wrong, and you just post the same thing over and over again. Do you think that I'll start believing it if you repeat it often enough?

 

[pood]

So I could do something different to what he INFALLIBLY KNEW I would do?

Then he's not infallible, is he?

I didn’t say that.

But apparently you did not read my post on an omniscient predictor to find out what I DID say.

 

[Kylie]

Without reliable cause and effect we can never reliably cause any effect, and would have no freedom to do anything at all. Reliable causation ENABLES every freedom we have. So, "freedom from cause and effect" is not a freedom that anyone actually wants or needs.

You just tried to convince me that EVERYTHING requires reliable causation.

Yes. I find it easier to dispense with determinism by assuming a world of perfectly reliable causation. Determinism becomes irrelevant by its own ubiquity.

Determinism isn't required in a purely deterministic universe, because everything's determined.

No, determinism is definitely required. But there is never any reason to bring it up, because reliable cause and effect is simply taken for granted. It is like a constant that appears on both sides of every equation and can be subtracted from both sides without affecting the result.

The intelligent mind simply acknowledges it and then forgets about it. It only tells us one thing, that everything that happens is causally necessary from any prior point in eternity. Yeah, but so what? How does this change anything? It doesn't.

It cannot help us to make any decision, because it only can tell us that, whatever we decide will have been inevitable. We can't even use that to decide between the chicken and the steak, because it never tells us what that inevitable choice will be. We still have to make that choice for ourselves based upon more useful information, like, what did we have for lunch earlier?

Unsupported claim.

Your logic is not like our Earth logic.

Thank you!

Oh no, that wasn't a compliment. Quite the opposite.

Reliable causation would mean that there is only one path the sequence of events in the universe can take, and it will take that path with as much certainty as watching a movie you've seen many times.

Well if you've already seen a movie of your future ... but wait, that never really happens does it.

The movie of our future is "produced and directed" by our imagination. The only limit to our possibilities are the ability to imagine them and the ability to carry them through.

But it can not be changed any more than I can change the outcome of Star Wars.

The characters can't choose to do any different, and neither can we. We would not be free to do ANYTHING.

Choosing will inevitably happen, just exactly as it does happen. And if the people in the restaurant can do it, then so can you.

Again, you are merely asserting that they are choosing. You seem utterly incapable of supporting your claim.

When I decide what to eat for dinner, that is not something that can be described in mathematical terms like the cause-and-effect the moon has on the tides.

No math required. You will simply have your own reasons why you chose what you chose for dinner. Thoughts and feelings are causes.

Oh, and one important thing to keep in mind: Within the domain of human influence, the single inevitable future will be chosen, by us, from among the many possible futures that we will imagine.

It's just going around in circles with you, isn't it?

 

[Kylie]

So I could do something different to what he INFALLIBLY KNEW I would do?

Then he's not infallible, is he?

I didn’t say that.

But apparently you did not read my post on an omniscient predictor to find out what I DID say.

If your infallible being says, "Kylie will order the chicken, I know this infallibly," but then I order the steak, was the infallible being right or wrong?

I want a one-word answer please.

 

[bilby]

You seem to think that if it CAN be done, then Humans should be able to do it right now. Where did you get this idea?

If you really imagine that I might think that, then you seem to be astonishingly bad at reading comprehension.

 

[pood]

So I could do something different to what he INFALLIBLY KNEW I would do?

Then he's not infallible, is he?

I didn’t say that.

But apparently you did not read my post on an omniscient predictor to find out what I DID say.

If your infallible being says, "Kylie will order the chicken, I know this infallibly," but then I order the steak, was the infallible being right or wrong?

I want a one-word answer please.

You don’t understand.

Once again, please read this.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Oh my God, I could bang my head against a brick wall and make more progress.

I wouldn't mind seeing a demonstration of that...

I respond to your claims to show you why I think they are wrong, and you just post the same thing over and over again. Do you think that I'll start believing it if you repeat it often enough?

Your claim is that people are not "really" choosing if their choice is inevitable. I keep showing people actually choosing and you keep trying to avoid admitting that you see what you see.

The basis of your claim is figurative thinking. If we know that someone definitely will choose the Fried Chicken, then it is AS IF they could do nothing else. But that is literally false, due to the meaning of "can do" being very different from the meaning of "will do".

We can discuss things that "can be done" even if they never "will be done". We can discuss things that we "could have done" even if we never "would have done" them under the same circumstances.

We can discuss many possibilities without ever actualizing any of them.

But when we conflate what "can" happen with what "will" happen, we lose the meaning of what "can" happen. And we end up with this bit of nonsense that you have never been able to untangle:

Waiter: "What will you have for dinner, sir?"
Customer: "I don't know. What are my possibilities?"
Waiter: "Because there is only one possibility, there is only one thing that you can order."
Customer: "Shucks. Okay then, what is that one thing that I can order?"
Waiter: "I have no clue!"

So, determinism cannot work that way. Determinism cannot say "you could not have done otherwise". Determinism may only say "you would not have done otherwise".

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. What we "can" do is only constrained by our imagination and our physical ability to make that possibility real.

 

[Kylie]

So I could do something different to what he INFALLIBLY KNEW I would do?

Then he's not infallible, is he?

I didn’t say that.

But apparently you did not read my post on an omniscient predictor to find out what I DID say.

If your infallible being says, "Kylie will order the chicken, I know this infallibly," but then I order the steak, was the infallible being right or wrong?

I want a one-word answer please.

You don’t understand.

Once again, please read this.

Your wordplay is not convincing.

You are suggesting that God can know that I am going to do X, he is going to be 100% right, there's no way he can ever be wrong, and yet I can still do Y?

How can I possibly do Y if God knows ahead of time that I'm going to do X and not Y?

Either God got it wrong (which can't be the case), or I am not able to do Y because God knows I am going to do X instead and therefore Y is not one of the available options.

You seem to be asking me to accept P and Not P at the same time.

And you seem utterly incapable of actually answering my question, so I will ask it again. I will keep asking it until you provide an answer. It's a very simple question.

If your infallible being says, "Kylie will order the chicken, I know this infallibly," but then I order the steak, was the infallible being right or wrong?

I want a one-word answer please.

 

[Kylie]

Free will means that each option has the possibility of being chosen.

The "possibility of being chosen" means that you are able to choose it. It is something that can happen and it is something that you can make happen, if you choose to do so. But the "ability to choose it" does not require that you actually do choose it. You are able to choose anything (or everything) on the menu. No one is stopping you.

I know the possibility doesn't require that I MUST choose it.

My point is that there is no possibility of me doing it if it is determined that I will do something else.

The "probability of being chosen" is the statistical likelihood that you will choose a given item, if we were trying to predict what you would order.

But if one outcome is inevitable, then the statistical likelihood I will do anything else is zero, whether I know it or not.

If the outcome is determined, then I do not have the freedom of making the choice myself.

Well, it will either be determined that you will have the freedom to make the choice yourself, or it will be determined that a guy with a gun will make you choose something you don't want. Your "freedom to make the choice yourself" refers to the absence of the guy with a gun (or any other extraordinary influence that effectively makes the choice for you, perhaps a hypnotist, or a significant mental illness, etc.).

In most cases you will find that it is determined that you must make that choice yourself. If you do not make the choice, you will get no dinner.

Determinism doesn't actually change anything.

And on what basis do you claim that if I make the decision based on my subjective feelings and emotions, that it is still deterministic in nature.

If I will not choose anything else, how can you say I can?

If you "will" do something then you certainly will. However, if you don't know yet what you "will" do, you consider what you "can" do, and based on the consideration of what you "can" do, you decide what you "will" do. Do you see the difference between "can" and "will"?

Yes.

Do you see that if something is inevitable, then it WILL happen, and your silly games with the word "CAN" are meaningless?

When choosing, there are always multiple things that you "can" do, even though there is but one thing that you "will" do. The only reason you're using "can" is because you are uncertain, until you reach the end of your choosing, what it is that you "will" do. The notion of "possibility", something that "can" happen, or something that we "can" choose to do, is part of the rational causal mechanism we use to deal with matters of uncertainty.

But we are talking about something that is inevitable, so using the word CAN is meaningless.

But the fact that it can not be determined prior to me making the choice means that it is not predetermined.

The notion of "causal necessity" is that the state of things at any prior point in time will result in a single state of things at any future point in time. This is that "chain of causation", where every event is the reliably result of prior causes, and each prior cause is itself the reliable result of prior causes, ad infinitum.

The human brain is incapable of taking into account an infinite chain of causes. So, we generally limit ourselves to the most meaningful and relevant causes. A meaningful cause is one that efficiently explains why an event happened. A relevant cause is one that we can actually do something about to effect future events.

It will be up to you to decide what you will order for dinner. And you will be held responsible for your choice. You are the most meaningful and relevant cause of your choice. The Big Bang, though it has a place in every causal chain as an "incidental" cause, is never the meaningful or relevant cause of any human choice. This is why the waiter brings you the dinner that you ordered and the bill for it, instead of delivering the dinner and the bill to the Big Bang.

But the outcome isn't INEVITABLE, is it? My choice is a result of my subjective emotions, and can not be determined ahead of time.

Please show evidence to support that my choice is theoretically 100% predictable.

That's actually simpler than you might think. It begins by simply asking you, "Why did you order chicken instead of the steak or the pork or whatever else you saw on the menu?". You explain your reasoning, perhaps in terms of the price of the dinner, or perhaps in terms of your dietary goals, perhaps in terms of your tastes, perhaps in terms of your recent experiences ("I had bacon for breakfast and a steak for lunch, so I decided to have chicken for dinner"), perhaps in terms of your beliefs and values ("I'm Jewish and cannot eat pork"), or any specific combination of these goals and reasons.

Then we ask you, "Did these goals and reasons cause you to order the Chicken?" And you say, "Yes, they caused me to order the Chicken". And we ask, "If we had known your goals and reasons before your choice, could we have predicted your choice?" And you would say, "Yes. If you knew all that then you could have predicted my choice with 100% accuracy".

And what if my choice was also based on my fluctuating and subjective emotions Are you suggesting that they can be predicted ahead of schedule? If yes, please inform the relevant psychological authority in your area, because you can predict who will have depression, who will go off their nut and start shooting people at the mall, etc.

If not, then a random element has been introduced and the future is inherently unpredictable.

 

[Kylie]

I respond to your claims to show you why I think they are wrong, and you just post the same thing over and over again. Do you think that I'll start believing it if you repeat it often enough?

Your claim is that people are not "really" choosing if their choice is inevitable. I keep showing people actually choosing and you keep trying to avoid admitting that you see what you see.

No you haven't.

You've just claimed that people are choosing. You haven't shown that what they are doing actually is a choice.

I could just as well say, "A person draws a circle with four straight sides of equal length that meet at right angles" and claim this shows that circles can be squares.

The basis of your claim is figurative thinking. If we know that someone definitely will choose the Fried Chicken, then it is AS IF they could do nothing else. But that is literally false, due to the meaning of "can do" being very different from the meaning of "will do".

Then what's all this talk of the outcome being inevitable?

We can discuss things that "can be done" even if they never "will be done". We can discuss things that we "could have done" even if we never "would have done" them under the same circumstances.

If we COULD have done them, then the outcome we got was not inevitable.

We can discuss many possibilities without ever actualizing any of them.

But when we conflate what "can" happen with what "will" happen, we lose the meaning of what "can" happen. And we end up with this bit of nonsense that you have never been able to untangle:

Waiter: "What will you have for dinner, sir?"
Customer: "I don't know. What are my possibilities?"
Waiter: "Because there is only one possibility, there is only one thing that you can order."
Customer: "Shucks. Okay then, what is that one thing that I can order?"
Waiter: "I have no clue!"

So, determinism cannot work that way. Determinism cannot say "you could not have done otherwise". Determinism may only say "you would not have done otherwise".

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. What we "can" do is only constrained by our imagination and our physical ability to make that possibility real.

Why do you keep using that same silly example when I've already responded to it?

 

[Marvin Edwards]

My point is that there is no possibility of me doing it if it is determined that I will do something else.

But, suppose it was determined that you would do something else. For example, if it were determined that you would order the steak dinner instead of the chicken dinner, then you would order the steak dinner, right?

But if one outcome is inevitable, then the statistical likelihood I will do anything else is zero, whether I know it or not.

So, which is it? Is the probability of the chicken 0% and the probability of the steak 100%, or, is the probability of the steak 0% and the probability of the chicken 100%. We don't know yet, because at the beginning of choosing we only have possibilities.

Like you said, one is inevitable whether you know it or not. But either one could be inevitable, we simply do not know which.

We have two distinct possibilities: the chicken could be inevitable OR the steak could be inevitable.

So, how do we determine which one is our inevitable choice?

If the outcome is determined, then I do not have the freedom of making the choice myself.

Well, somebody had better decide, or you'll go without dinner. So, I suspect that you will make a choice, just like everyone else in the restaurant. And, after you make that choice, you will know which of your options was inevitable and which was only a possibility.

And on what basis do you claim that if I make the decision based on my subjective feelings and emotions, that it is still deterministic in nature.

Then, did your subjective feelings and emotions cause your choice? If so, then the choice was reliably caused (deterministic) and it was reliably caused by you (free will).

But we are talking about something that is inevitable, so using the word CAN is meaningless.

When we do not know what we WILL inevitably choose, we consider the many things that we CAN inevitably choose, to discover what we WOULD inevitably choose and what we inevitably COULD HAVE chosen, but didn't.

But the outcome isn't INEVITABLE, is it?

The thing about universal causal necessity/inevitability is that our own choices, of our own free will, are part of the overall scheme of causation. This is not an inevitability that is "beyond our control", but an inevitability that incorporates our own control. Our inevitable choosing controls what inevitably happens next.

And this is that "irrelevant by ubiquity" thing. Since it is assumed that every event is inevitable, we can drop that useless information and simply say, "Our choosing controls what happens next". Which is what we were already saying before we ever heard of determinism.

My choice is a result of my subjective emotions, and can not be determined ahead of time.

Generally speaking, that is correct. On the other hand, you may have a close friend who can complete your sentences, who knows you well enough to predict your emotional reaction to most things.

 

[Jarhyn]

You seem to think that if it CAN be done, then Humans should be able to do it right now. Where did you get this idea?

If you really imagine that I might think that, then you seem to be astonishingly bad at reading comprehension.

I'll second that. To further my point, I would invite you to interpret the most recent post I made, which seems to be stumping them?

 

[Marvin Edwards]

You've just claimed that people are choosing. You haven't shown that what they are doing actually is a choice.

Choosing is when a person reads a restaurant menu, selects a dinner based on their own goals and reasons, and conveys that chosen intention to the waiter as an "I will", as in "I will have the Chef Salad, please".

That is actually choosing and the "I will have the Chef Salad" is actually a choice.

From the Oxford English Dictionary: Choice "1.a. The act of choosing; preferential determination between things proposed; selection, election."

I believe I have in fact shown that what they are doing is actually a choice.

The basis of your claim is figurative thinking. If we know that someone definitely will choose the Fried Chicken, then it is AS IF they could do nothing else. But that is literally false, due to the meaning of "can do" being very different from the meaning of "will do".

Then what's all this talk of the outcome being inevitable?

It's not just the outcome, the choice, that is inevitable. The choosing is also inevitable. And the fact that it will be you and no one else making that choice is also inevitable.

Inevitability is not what it's cracked up to be.

Waiter: "What will you have for dinner, sir?"
Customer: "I don't know. What are my possibilities?"
Waiter: "Because there is only one possibility, there is only one thing that you can order."
Customer: "Shucks. Okay then, what is that one thing that I can order?"
Waiter: "I have no clue!"

Why do you keep using that same silly example when I've already responded to it?

Your response was to give the Waiter omniscience so that he could tell the Customer what he would order.

The correct response is to simply stop confusing actuality with possibility and "will" with "can". The waiter no longer requires omniscience to predict the customer's order, but simply tells the customer the many possible dinners that the chef is prepared to cook for him. And then, the customer chooses for himself what he will order for dinner. That's what we humans evolved the notion of possibilities to handle.

 

[Kylie]

My point is that there is no possibility of me doing it if it is determined that I will do something else.

But, suppose it was determined that you would do something else. For example, if it were determined that you would order the steak dinner instead of the chicken dinner, then you would order the steak dinner, right?

You are missing my point.

If it was determined that I would do X, I can NOT do something other than X.

All you are doing here is working backwards, claiming that whatever happened is what was determined. It's a post-diction, which any fool can make. You are doing nothing more than shooting the arrow and then painting a target around wherever it hits, then claiming you got a bullseye.

But if one outcome is inevitable, then the statistical likelihood I will do anything else is zero, whether I know it or not.

So, which is it? Is the probability of the chicken 0% and the probability of the steak 100%, or, is the probability of the steak 0% and the probability of the chicken 100%. We don't know yet, because at the beginning of choosing we only have possibilities.

The fact we do not know is irrelevant.

Why you keep bringing it to what we know is beyond me.

Like you said, one is inevitable whether you know it or not. But either one could be inevitable, we simply do not know which.

We have two distinct possibilities: the chicken could be inevitable OR the steak could be inevitable.

So, how do we determine which one is our inevitable choice?

Assuming that it is a deterministic universe, we would have to wait and see.

But, as I apparently have to remind you YET AGAIN, it's not a choice.

If the outcome is determined, then I do not have the freedom of making the choice myself.

Well, somebody had better decide, or you'll go without dinner. So, I suspect that you will make a choice, just like everyone else in the restaurant. And, after you make that choice, you will know which of your options was inevitable and which was only a possibility.

Again, IT'S NOT A CHOICE.

How you keep missing this obvious fact is beyond me.

The person ordering only THINKS they have made a choice.

And on what basis do you claim that if I make the decision based on my subjective feelings and emotions, that it is still deterministic in nature.

Then, did your subjective feelings and emotions cause your choice? If so, then the choice was reliably caused (deterministic) and it was reliably caused by you (free will).

And did I say that nothing causes my choice? No.

My point (if you had bothered to actually pay attention to my arguments) is that the idea of the universe's state at any point in time being an unavoidable consequence of some earlier state is not correct.

But we are talking about something that is inevitable, so using the word CAN is meaningless.

When we do not know what we WILL inevitably choose, we consider the many things that we CAN inevitably choose, to discover what we WOULD inevitably choose and what we inevitably COULD HAVE chosen, but didn't.

You keep using that word CAN when I've already explained that it can possibly apply to a situation where there's a WILL.

But the outcome isn't INEVITABLE, is it?

The thing about universal causal necessity/inevitability is that our own choices, of our own free will, are part of the overall scheme of causation. This is not an inevitability that is "beyond our control", but an inevitability that incorporates our own control. Our inevitable choosing controls what inevitably happens next.

And this is that "irrelevant by ubiquity" thing. Since it is assumed that every event is inevitable, we can drop that useless information and simply say, "Our choosing controls what happens next". Which is what we were already saying before we ever heard of determinism.

Again, you make a statement and fail to support it.

You must do MORE than just assert that something is correct. You must DEMONSTRATE it. Simply saying people make choices is NOT a demonstration.

My choice is a result of my subjective emotions, and can not be determined ahead of time.

Generally speaking, that is correct. On the other hand, you may have a close friend who can complete your sentences, who knows you well enough to predict your emotional reaction to most things.

So? Educated guesses are a far cry from KNOWING.