Demystifying Determinism

[Jarhyn]

If you say that, simultaneously, Outcome B CAN happen, then Outcome B MUST have some non-zero probability.

Nope. This is just an illusion. It can absolutely have a zero probability chance of happening from one initial state, for example, while having a 100% probability as the result of a different prior state.

The only time when probabilities become nonzero are in the models of the imagination, when we gamble on things we cannot, at that moment, know.

The probabilities are created by us being in a fun house mirror maze where we can't actually tell what future microstate our current microstate will advance to.

Of course, sometimes systems become rather chaotic as they progress, such as the order of a deck of cards. In this way, we cannot know without cheating and looking, or literally tracking the cards through the chaos, which hand we will be dealt, but there most certainly is only one order of cards in the deck.

It is the uncertainty that we play with, the path towards resolving what we cannot know into what everything inevitably would become, certain, determined, and singular in the past, which creates this illusion.

All the hard Determinist manages to say then is "probability is an illusion", but as we have, all of the compatibilists, pointed out: it is not about probabilistics or randomness, it is about recognizing that choice happens, exclusively in fact, by deterministic process.

 

[Kylie]

If you say Outcome A WILL happen, then outcome A has a probability of 100%.

If you KNOW that Outcome A WILL happen, then why are you discussing probabilities? The only time probabilities come up is when we DO NOT KNOW what the Outcome will be.

Probabilities are out best guesses as to what will happen. A probability is a measure of the possibility. The only time we make guesses is when we don't know what will happen. When we don't know what WILL happen, we imagine what CAN happen, to prepare for what DOES happen.

To say that an event that we know will happen has a probability of 100% is bull ship.

You miss the point that it doesn't matter what we know. Our knowledge does not determine the way the universe is.

If I give you three boxes, tell you that keys to a new car are in one and then ask you to pick one, the fact that you don't know doesn't mean that each box has a non-zero probability. No matter what you say, one box has a 100% chance and the other two have a 0% chance.

If you say that, simultaneously, Outcome B CAN happen, then Outcome B MUST have some non-zero probability. Even if it has a probability of 1%, then the total probability is 101%. If it has a one-in-a-million chance, then it's still a total probability of 1.000001%.

If we KNOW that Outcome B CAN happen, then we also KNOW that Outcome A might NOT HAPPEN. Now, if we need to guess the likelihood of A versus the likelihood of B, we express those two likelihoods a parts of 100%. So, the probabilities will NEVER total more than 100%.

If you know that Outcome A WILL happen and yet you also say that Outcome B CAN happen, then you have a probability greater than 100%.

Now, I'm more than happy to accept what you are saying. There is exactly one thing that will happen, and it has a probability of 100% that it will happen. But that means that ALL OTHER THINGS by definition have a 0% chance of happening. And if something has a 0% chance of happening, then they can't happen.

Something that CAN happen will always have a probability higher than 0%. Something that WILL happen will have no probability attached at all. If something other than A can happen, then A will have a probability less that 100%.

If something WILL happen, then that thing has a probability of 100%.

 

[Kylie]

If you say that, simultaneously, Outcome B CAN happen, then Outcome B MUST have some non-zero probability.

Nope. This is just an illusion. It can absolutely have a zero probability chance of happening from one initial state, for example, while having a 100% probability as the result of a different prior state.

The only time when probabilities become nonzero are in the models of the imagination, when we gamble on things we cannot, at that moment, know.

The probabilities are created by us being in a fun house mirror maze where we can't actually tell what future microstate our current microstate will advance to.

Of course, sometimes systems become rather chaotic as they progress, such as the order of a deck of cards. In this way, we cannot know without cheating and looking, or literally tracking the cards through the chaos, which hand we will be dealt, but there most certainly is only one order of cards in the deck.

It is the uncertainty that we play with, the path towards resolving what we cannot know into what everything inevitably would become, certain, determined, and singular in the past, which creates this illusion.

All the hard Determinist manages to say then is "probability is an illusion", but as we have, all of the compatibilists, pointed out: it is not about probabilistics or randomness, it is about recognizing that choice happens, exclusively in fact, by deterministic process.

If it has a 0% chance of happening, then it's wrong to say it CAN happen.

 

[Kylie]

Once again, you are confusing posterior with prior probabilities.

Were you going to answer my latest posts? Did you read the forekowledge and free will paper I linked?

So the outcome can only be "set in stone" AFTER it has happened?

 

[Jarhyn]

If you say that, simultaneously, Outcome B CAN happen, then Outcome B MUST have some non-zero probability.

Nope. This is just an illusion. It can absolutely have a zero probability chance of happening from one initial state, for example, while having a 100% probability as the result of a different prior state.

The only time when probabilities become nonzero are in the models of the imagination, when we gamble on things we cannot, at that moment, know.

The probabilities are created by us being in a fun house mirror maze where we can't actually tell what future microstate our current microstate will advance to.

Of course, sometimes systems become rather chaotic as they progress, such as the order of a deck of cards. In this way, we cannot know without cheating and looking, or literally tracking the cards through the chaos, which hand we will be dealt, but there most certainly is only one order of cards in the deck.

It is the uncertainty that we play with, the path towards resolving what we cannot know into what everything inevitably would become, certain, determined, and singular in the past, which creates this illusion.

All the hard Determinist manages to say then is "probability is an illusion", but as we have, all of the compatibilists, pointed out: it is not about probabilistics or randomness, it is about recognizing that choice happens, exclusively in fact, by deterministic process.

If it has a 0% chance of happening, then it's wrong to say it CAN happen.

Nope. This is an illusion. We are talking a Deterministic system here, but one which nonetheless can be presented different states.

"Could" is not limited by that which immediately is happening. "Could" is limited by what evolves from some set of presented states, that are not necessarily "that which must happen ala deterministic process against the state of reality".

The mere fact that this extension is mathematically describable, is enough to recognize that the approximal process, "doing it in your head with macrophysical models" is exactly "me deciding for myself" to the same extent that I can in fact deterministically describe "me deciding for the dwarf". The fact is, "I decided" is all I need to demonstrate for "choice" and "will" and "freedom" -- though the dwarf in this example had none of those but "will". Sorry, Urist.

 

[Kylie]

If you say that, simultaneously, Outcome B CAN happen, then Outcome B MUST have some non-zero probability.

Nope. This is just an illusion. It can absolutely have a zero probability chance of happening from one initial state, for example, while having a 100% probability as the result of a different prior state.

The only time when probabilities become nonzero are in the models of the imagination, when we gamble on things we cannot, at that moment, know.

The probabilities are created by us being in a fun house mirror maze where we can't actually tell what future microstate our current microstate will advance to.

Of course, sometimes systems become rather chaotic as they progress, such as the order of a deck of cards. In this way, we cannot know without cheating and looking, or literally tracking the cards through the chaos, which hand we will be dealt, but there most certainly is only one order of cards in the deck.

It is the uncertainty that we play with, the path towards resolving what we cannot know into what everything inevitably would become, certain, determined, and singular in the past, which creates this illusion.

All the hard Determinist manages to say then is "probability is an illusion", but as we have, all of the compatibilists, pointed out: it is not about probabilistics or randomness, it is about recognizing that choice happens, exclusively in fact, by deterministic process.

If it has a 0% chance of happening, then it's wrong to say it CAN happen.

Nope. This is an illusion. We are talking a Deterministic system here, but one which nonetheless can be presented different states.

"Could" is not limited by that which immediately is happening. "Could" is limited by what evolves from some set of presented states, that are not necessarily "that which must happen ala deterministic process against the state of reality".

The mere fact that this extension is mathematically describable, is enough to recognize that the approximal process, "doing it in your head with macrophysical models" is exactly "me deciding for myself" to the same extent that I can in fact deterministically describe "me deciding for the dwarf". The fact is, "I decided" is all I need to demonstrate for "choice" and "will" and "freedom" -- though the dwarf in this example had none of those but "will". Sorry, Urist.

If it COULD happen, then there's no justification for saying it has a 0% chance, is there?

 

[bilby]

If you say Outcome A WILL happen, then outcome A has a probability of 100%.

If you say that, simultaneously, Outcome B CAN happen, then...

Hold on; Nobody is ever in a position to say those things simultaneously. That's the entire fucking point.

What CAN happen is a provisional claim about the unknowable future.

What WILL happen is a definitive claim about a known situation. It's impossible to know for sure what WILL happen, unless you are discussing a recording of past events.

Even then, there's a non-zero possibility that you might be wrong. If you are watching Star Wars, and you say "in a minute, Luke will decide to go off with Obi-Wan instead of staying on Tatooine", you are probably right - but there's a non-zero possibility that the power might go out, and he will never do that because the movie stops playing.

 

[Jarhyn]

If you say that, simultaneously, Outcome B CAN happen, then Outcome B MUST have some non-zero probability.

Nope. This is just an illusion. It can absolutely have a zero probability chance of happening from one initial state, for example, while having a 100% probability as the result of a different prior state.

The only time when probabilities become nonzero are in the models of the imagination, when we gamble on things we cannot, at that moment, know.

The probabilities are created by us being in a fun house mirror maze where we can't actually tell what future microstate our current microstate will advance to.

Of course, sometimes systems become rather chaotic as they progress, such as the order of a deck of cards. In this way, we cannot know without cheating and looking, or literally tracking the cards through the chaos, which hand we will be dealt, but there most certainly is only one order of cards in the deck.

It is the uncertainty that we play with, the path towards resolving what we cannot know into what everything inevitably would become, certain, determined, and singular in the past, which creates this illusion.

All the hard Determinist manages to say then is "probability is an illusion", but as we have, all of the compatibilists, pointed out: it is not about probabilistics or randomness, it is about recognizing that choice happens, exclusively in fact, by deterministic process.

If it has a 0% chance of happening, then it's wrong to say it CAN happen.

Nope. This is an illusion. We are talking a Deterministic system here, but one which nonetheless can be presented different states.

"Could" is not limited by that which immediately is happening. "Could" is limited by what evolves from some set of presented states, that are not necessarily "that which must happen ala deterministic process against the state of reality".

The mere fact that this extension is mathematically describable, is enough to recognize that the approximal process, "doing it in your head with macrophysical models" is exactly "me deciding for myself" to the same extent that I can in fact deterministically describe "me deciding for the dwarf". The fact is, "I decided" is all I need to demonstrate for "choice" and "will" and "freedom" -- though the dwarf in this example had none of those but "will". Sorry, Urist.

If it COULD happen, then there's no justification for saying it has a 0% chance, is there?

"Could" has nothing to do with "chance". They have absolutely nothing to do with one another.

 

[Jarhyn]

If you say Outcome A WILL happen, then outcome A has a probability of 100%.

If you say that, simultaneously, Outcome B CAN happen, then...

Hold on; Nobody is ever in a position to say those things simultaneously. That's the entire fucking point.

What CAN happen as calculated by us mortals made of flesh living in this universe is a provisional claim about the unknowable future.

What WILL happen is a definitive claim about a known situation. It's impossible to know for sure what WILL happen, unless you are discussing a recording of past events.

Even then, there's a non-zero provisional possibility that you might be wrong. If you are watching Star Wars, and you say "in a minute, Luke will decide to go off with Obi-Wan instead of staying on Tatooine", you are probably right - but there's a non-zero possibility that the power might go out, and he will never do that because the movie stops playing.

Bold are edits. Otherwise, 100% from my perspective.

As to respond to the red text: in fact not even a god could violate this, unless they predetermined it "12 volcanoes" style, in which case that event is literally "in the past" because it is determined by the initial condition.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

You miss the point that it doesn't matter what we know. Our knowledge does not determine the way the universe is.

You miss the point that it DOES matter what we know. Probabilities are IRRELEVANT if we already KNOW that something will happen.

It is only with we do not already KNOW what will happen that we consider different possibilities and the probability that one or the other will happen.

For example:

If I give you three boxes, tell you that keys to a new car are in one and then ask you to pick one, the fact that you don't know doesn't mean that each box has a non-zero probability. No matter what you say, one box has a 100% chance and the other two have a 0% chance.

The fact that I do not know which of three boxes holds the keys means that each box has a 33.3% probability of having the keys. None of the boxes have a 100% probability.

The fact that one of the boxes will inevitably hold the keys does not change any of the probabilities. We have the same situation with the horse race. We know that one of the horses will inevitably win the race, but we don't know which one. So, we calculate the odds of winning based upon the factors that we do know, like the age of the horse, its history of wins and losses, the conditions of the track, the experience of the jockey, etc.

Despite the fact that one of the horses will win and all of the others will not win, does not change the odds, because the only reason that we are computing the odds is because WE DON"T KNOW WHICH HORSE WILL WIN.

Probabilities are entirely about what we know and what we don't know. The same is true for possibilities.

If something WILL happen, then that thing has a probability of 100%.

Sorry, but that is incorrect.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

So the outcome can only be "set in stone" AFTER it has happened?

If you like the "set in stone" metaphor, then, yes, the outcome will be "set in stone" from any prior point in eternity. So what? How does that change anything?

We still don't know WHAT is "set in stone" to happen. And when we don't know the single thing that WILL happen, we consider the MULTIPLE things that CAN happen, compute the probability for each if you like, and place our bets.

That's how possibilities and probabilities work.

 

[Jarhyn]

You miss the point that it doesn't matter what we know. Our knowledge does not determine the way the universe is.

You miss the point that it DOES matter what we know. Probabilities are IRRELEVANT if we already KNOW that something will happen.

It is only with we do not already KNOW what will happen that we consider different possibilities and the probability that one or the other will happen.

For example:

If I give you three boxes, tell you that keys to a new car are in one and then ask you to pick one, the fact that you don't know doesn't mean that each box has a non-zero probability. No matter what you say, one box has a 100% chance and the other two have a 0% chance.

The fact that I do not know which of three boxes holds the keys means that each box has a 33.3% probability of having the keys. None of the boxes have a 100% probability.

The fact that one of the boxes will inevitably hold the keys does not change any of the probabilities. We have the same situation with the horse race. We know that one of the horses will inevitably win the race, but we don't know which one. So, we calculate the odds of winning based upon the factors that we do know, like the age of the horse, its history of wins and losses, the conditions of the track, the experience of the jockey, etc.

Despite the fact that one of the horses will win and all of the others will not win, does not change the odds, because the only reason that we are computing the odds is because WE DON"T KNOW WHICH HORSE WILL WIN.

Probabilities are entirely about what we know and what we don't know. The same is true for possibilities.

If something WILL happen, then that thing has a probability of 100%.

Sorry, but that is incorrect.

I'll note that we disagree on probability because you like to play in "provisionals"

I like to first observe the perfect case and then approximate from there, which indicates that such probabilities are illusory, even if our calculations using these made up and false numbers are part of decision making.

 

[fromderinside]

Choosing isn't something done. It is something you choose to do.

Yeah. Pretty good rat-tat-bumpf.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

...
I like to first observe the perfect case and then approximate from there, which indicates that such probabilities are illusory, even if our calculations using these made up and false numbers are part of decision making.

Probabilities are real numbers used to perform real calculations that have real effects in the real world (people placing bets on horses). So, I don't think we can call them "illusory".

 

[bilby]

The Melbourne Cup is coming up in a couple of months. I could be rich, if only I could dispel this illusion that I don't know which horse will win.

But I have a plan. I will nip down to the TAB, and check out which one is being offered at odds of 0/1.

 

[Jarhyn]

...
I like to first observe the perfect case and then approximate from there, which indicates that such probabilities are illusory, even if our calculations using these made up and false numbers are part of decision making.

Probabilities are real numbers used to perform real calculations that have real effects in the real world (people placing bets on horses). So, I don't think we can call them "illusory".

Except that they are entirely inaccurate. All things either absolutely will happen in reality at some particular point in time, or absolutely won't.

These partial probabilities are in fact imaginary, completely illusory, as long as you accept determinism.

Even were you to accept indeterminism, the homogeneity caused by microstates being so densely variant across apparent macrostates drives all probabilities even in this indeterministic mess very close to 0 and 1.

Probabilities are only based on our uncertainty of what is going to happen, but our uncertainty of what will happen does not make it any more or less likely to do so.

We can calculate how often it happens over time, among situations we are uncertain of.

We can calculate exactly how certain we can be of particular things happening at a given point in time on the basis of prior observations.


This calculable certainty is the core indiscreet probability!

But it does not actually have any impact on what the result will be except when we decide on the basis of the number, and in deciding we prove our estimates wrong because in that moment you calculated 33% chance, but the reality is that we recognize that this probability was just a falsehood, revealed by the existence of the singular past.

 

[DBT]

And you seem to think that CAN and WILL NOT don't contradict.

They don't.

You can choose to respond to me or you can choose not to .

You will not do both.

That's not how determinism is defined. The stipulation of no deviation negates multiple options. Consequently, what is done must be done and nothing else can be done in that instance or any instance as the system evolves or develops.

Yes, it is, because deviation doesn't create the options nor negate them. "Deviation" has nothing to do with it. Nor does randomness. The "deviation" you think you see in discussion of free will is in fact the illusion. It is not deviation but exploration of hypothetical states: we can process as much in our imaginations.

Deviation is an alternative action.

Action A was determined, yet action B happened.

The possibility of a deviation within a sequence of deterministic events allows at least two events to happen, action A or action B.

Based on your own definition, determinism does not permit deviations, consequently there are no alternate actions or deciding between action B or action A - the latter must happen because it's entailed by the system as it evolves or develops.

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

The undeniable consequence of a deterministic system is that there are no alternatives to select from.

Whatever happens must necessarily happen. What must necessarily happen is not a matter of choice or free will.

You don't have a leg to stand on. Your own definition negates the notion of free will.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Except that they are entirely inaccurate. All things either absolutely will happen in reality at some particular point in time, or absolutely won't.

Of course. But we DON'T KNOW what absolutely will happen. So, we estimate the likelihood of the event to better prepare for what may or may not happen.

The example we're all familiar with is the Weather forecast: The chance of precipitation today is 20%.

These partial probabilities are in fact imaginary, completely illusory, as long as you accept determinism.

Should I take an umbrella with me or not? I DON'T KNOW whether it WILL rain or not, but I DO KNOW know that it is possible that it will rain today and I DO KNOW that the probability that it will rain where I am is 20%.

1)I can have certain knowledge that rain CAN happen and also certain knowledge of the LIKELIHOOD that it will happen.

2) And I can also have certain knowledge that, due to determinism, it WILL happen only one way or the other, and that whichever happens would have been causally necessary and inevitable from any prior point in time.

There is no contradiction between statements (1) and (2).

Even were you to accept indeterminism, ...

There is no need to entertain the idea of causal indeterminism. The only "indeterminism" we have here is NOT KNOWING yet what is causally necessary until it actually happens one way or the other.

Probabilities are only based on our uncertainty of what is going to happen, but our uncertainty of what will happen does not make it any more or less likely to do so.

Actually, probabilities are exactly what makes something "more or less likely". Probability is the explicit measure of "more or less likely".

Probability is the measure of our uncertainty. "More or less likely" is the measure of our uncertainty. They are the same notion.

We can calculate how often it happens over time, among situations we are uncertain of.

Yes. And the more knowledge we have, the less we are uncertain.

We can calculate exactly how certain we can be of particular things happening at a given point in time on the basis of prior observations.

Right. And we can grade our weathermen (or other predictive tools) on how often their prediction is correct.

This calculable certainty is the core indiscreet probability!

Well, I don't know a discrete probability from an indiscrete one. So I assume that is over my head.

But it does not actually have any impact on what the result will be except when we decide on the basis of the number, and in deciding we prove our estimates wrong because in that moment you calculated 33% chance, but the reality is that we recognize that this probability was just a falsehood, revealed by the existence of the singular past.

Oh, but it DOES have an impact upon what the result will be, because the only reason we're calculating the probability is to determine what we will do. Will I bring my umbrella today or leave it home? Will I bet on this horse or on that horse? If I am allowed to open all three boxes then I will surely obtain the keys to the car, but there is a 33% chance that I will only have to open one box, and a 67% chance that I will only have to open two boxes.

The only reason we care about probabilities is to inform us of the likelihood of certain events, so that we can prepare for what might happen, and decide an appropriate course of action.

 

[Jarhyn]

The chance of precipitation today is 20%.

Except again, we have to be very careful to be strictly honest with ourselves here that probability is a provisional probability: like all indiscrete Probabilities, it is illusory. It is an image, and it is necessarily a false one.

Actually, probabilities are exactly what makes something "more or less likely". Probability is the explicit measure of "more or less likely".

No, the state of the universe is what makes something more or less "likely", and by more or less I mean "either 1 or 0."

Probability is not a measure of likelihood so much as a measure of uncertainty over how likely something actually is. But while we may be uncertain about what will happen, determinism means this uncertainty is an illusion

 

[Marvin Edwards]

No, the state of the universe is what makes something more or less "likely", and by more or less I mean "either 1 or 0."

The "state of the universe" makes the event. Uncertainty makes "the likelihood of an event" meaningful.

Probability is not a measure of likelihood so much as a measure of uncertainty over how likely something actually is. But while we may be uncertain about what will happen, determinism means this uncertainty is an illusion

I can't agree with that. The uncertainty is a real condition of a real brain. It is not an illusion. Either we know something or we don't.

When we know something we use "will" and speak of the "actuality". When we are uncertain about something we use "can" and speak of the "possibility" (or "probability").