Demystifying Determinism

[Jarhyn]

You have formidable stamina, Marvin.

Yeah. I prefer to save my energy by just focusing repeated hits against the same crack until the piece falls away.

Part of the issue with the "hit every crack a bit every time" is that there are many useless cracks to strike against, and in fact much of the structure is designed to heal as focus is changed, or to tank that damage long enough to ward off the attack: as attention shifts off of "deviation/randomness" to neurological (neurotic?) handwaving, it gives deviation/randomness a chance to later refresh itself into the conversation.

I want to just... Break that piece off entirely before moving on.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

You have formidable stamina, Marvin.

Yeah. I prefer to save my energy by just focusing repeated hits against the same crack until the piece falls away.

Part of the issue with the "hit every crack a bit every time" is that there are many useless cracks to strike against, and in fact much of the structure is designed to heal as focus is changed, or to tank that damage long enough to ward off the attack: as attention shifts off of "deviation/randomness" to neurological (neurotic?) handwaving, it gives deviation/randomness a chance to later refresh itself into the conversation.

I want to just... Break that piece off entirely before moving on.

And Bilby and I have been hammering away at choice.

 

[DBT]

Determinism includes everything within the system.

That's what I've been saying, over and over!

It is what I have been saying all along. I have said it or alluded to it in practically every post I have made.

Determinism cannot exclude any event. It cannot exclude choosing any more than it can exclude a tree growing or the rain falling or anything else that happens. We cannot pretend that trees don't grow or that people don't chop them down to build houses. We cannot pretend that rain doesn't fall or that people don't invent umbrellas to stay dry.

And most important, we cannot pretend that the people in the restaurant are not choosing what they will have for dinner, while free of coercion and undue influence.

Well, yes. It's how determinism is defined. Nothing within the system can be excluded.

Which of course has described implications for the notion of free will'

Implications that effectively rule out the idea of free will within a deterministic system.

The implications have been described too many times.

The brain, according to the definition, is subject to determinism.

Using the wrong metaphors can distort the truth. The brain is not "subject to determinism". The brain simply "functions deterministically". Everything that happens within our brain, every neuron firing, every thought and feeling we experience, is reliably caused by prior neurons firing, and prior thoughts and feelings.

The proper metaphor is not determinism being the "king" of the brain, but rather the brain itself being determinism exercising control over other objects. For example, I filled a cup with water to take my morning pills. My brain controlled these events, and it did so deterministically.

My brain is simply doing what it naturally does. Neither the laws of nature nor determinism are external "agents" controlling what I do. They are simply me, doing what I naturally do.

Quite simply, if the world is deterministic, the brain being inseparable from the world and its objects and events, is deterministic. Consequently, what it does, its abilities, faculties, thoughts and action is determined - basically - by environment, inputs and memory function, a system where free will plays no part in thought or response.


The illusion of free will:
''How can we all truly have the freedom to decide our fate when we’re not dealt equal cards from the start? And it’s not just the cards we’re dealt, it’s also the ability to play those cards. Some are simply born better bluffers than others.

When you look at the concept of free will critically, the whole idea seems to crumble pretty quickly. In fact, researchers have come to the conclusion that believing in free will is like believing in religion, neither of them agree with the laws of physics. Think about it, if free will truly exists and if choice is not just a chemical process, then why can things like alcohol and antipsychotics completely change a person’s behavior?

Even worse, we’ve seen brain tumors turn people from pediatricians to pedophiles. Domenico Mattiello was once a respected pediatrician. For 30 years, he was loved by his patients and adored by their parents and everyone in the society. In a shocking turn of events, however, in 2012, he began facing trial after being accused of making pedophilic advances towards his female patients.

Neuroscientific research showed that Mattielo had a 4-inch tumor growing at the base of his brain that changed his behavior.

In 2002, a similar thing happened to an American school teacher. He suddenly started having pedophilic urges towards his step-daughter and was arrested. Then it was discovered that he had an egg-sized tumor growing in the part of his brain that was supposed to be responsible for decision-making. After the tumor got removed, the man’s pedophilic urges stopped completely, and he was able to return to his family.

If free will exists, why can removing a tumor change a person’s choice? Is it then possible that by altering brain chemistry or physical composition, we can completely change a person’s beliefs, ideologies, and choices without the person being able to do anything about it?''

 

[DBT]

You have formidable stamina, Marvin.

Not everyone is a compatibilist. Some of us are not convinced in the teachings of that faith.

 

[Jarhyn]

You have formidable stamina, Marvin.

Yeah. I prefer to save my energy by just focusing repeated hits against the same crack until the piece falls away.

Part of the issue with the "hit every crack a bit every time" is that there are many useless cracks to strike against, and in fact much of the structure is designed to heal as focus is changed, or to tank that damage long enough to ward off the attack: as attention shifts off of "deviation/randomness" to neurological (neurotic?) handwaving, it gives deviation/randomness a chance to later refresh itself into the conversation.

I want to just... Break that piece off entirely before moving on.

And Bilby and I have been hammering away at choice.

Indeed. Though it's a lot like some other issues I've been dealing with: the order of operations matters.

There are two aspects to DBT's rejection of choice: randomness/deviation, and "regulatory control"/neurology.

When you go after both, you end up in a Gish-Gallopy game of whack-a-mole.

Instead, I want to entirely eliminate one of these foundations. The foundation of "randomness/deviation" is the better of these candidates for absolute elimination because we already have a broad, clear description of the choice process which requires neither randomness or deviation.

Then once that foundation is clearly shown to be rotten and dysfunctional, it means there is nowhere left once we start dismantling this idiocy wherein DBT continually falls into Eye-Lasers levels of fatalism.

 

[pood]

Determinism includes everything within the system.

That's what I've been saying, over and over!

It is what I have been saying all along. I have said it or alluded to it in practically every post I have made.

Determinism cannot exclude any event. It cannot exclude choosing any more than it can exclude a tree growing or the rain falling or anything else that happens. We cannot pretend that trees don't grow or that people don't chop them down to build houses. We cannot pretend that rain doesn't fall or that people don't invent umbrellas to stay dry.

And most important, we cannot pretend that the people in the restaurant are not choosing what they will have for dinner, while free of coercion and undue influence.

Well, yes. It's how determinism is defined. Nothing within the system can be excluded.

Which of course has described implications for the notion of free will'

Implications that effectively rule out the idea of free will within a deterministic system.

The implications have been described too many times.

The brain, according to the definition, is subject to determinism.

Using the wrong metaphors can distort the truth. The brain is not "subject to determinism". The brain simply "functions deterministically". Everything that happens within our brain, every neuron firing, every thought and feeling we experience, is reliably caused by prior neurons firing, and prior thoughts and feelings.

The proper metaphor is not determinism being the "king" of the brain, but rather the brain itself being determinism exercising control over other objects. For example, I filled a cup with water to take my morning pills. My brain controlled these events, and it did so deterministically.

My brain is simply doing what it naturally does. Neither the laws of nature nor determinism are external "agents" controlling what I do. They are simply me, doing what I naturally do.

Quite simply, if the world is deterministic, the brain being inseparable from the world and its objects and events, is deterministic. Consequently, what it does, its abilities, faculties, thoughts and action is determined - basically - by environment, inputs and memory function, a system where free will plays no part in thought or response.


The illusion of free will:
''How can we all truly have the freedom to decide our fate when we’re not dealt equal cards from the start? And it’s not just the cards we’re dealt, it’s also the ability to play those cards. Some are simply born better bluffers than others.

When you look at the concept of free will critically, the whole idea seems to crumble pretty quickly. In fact, researchers have come to the conclusion that believing in free will is like believing in religion, neither of them agree with the laws of physics. Think about it, if free will truly exists and if choice is not just a chemical process, then why can things like alcohol and antipsychotics completely change a person’s behavior?

Even worse, we’ve seen brain tumors turn people from pediatricians to pedophiles. Domenico Mattiello was once a respected pediatrician. For 30 years, he was loved by his patients and adored by their parents and everyone in the society. In a shocking turn of events, however, in 2012, he began facing trial after being accused of making pedophilic advances towards his female patients.

Neuroscientific research showed that Mattielo had a 4-inch tumor growing at the base of his brain that changed his behavior.

In 2002, a similar thing happened to an American school teacher. He suddenly started having pedophilic urges towards his step-daughter and was arrested. Then it was discovered that he had an egg-sized tumor growing in the part of his brain that was supposed to be responsible for decision-making. After the tumor got removed, the man’s pedophilic urges stopped completely, and he was able to return to his family.

If free will exists, why can removing a tumor change a person’s choice? Is it then possible that by altering brain chemistry or physical composition, we can completely change a person’s beliefs, ideologies, and choices without the person being able to do anything about it?''

DBT doesn’t understand that every single expert he quotes — all of them, including the link above — are attacking contra-causal or libertarian free will, and not compatibilist free will.

In the link above, the author has some bit about choosing a banana or an apple, and then rewinding the tape of history and replaying it. Suppose you chose a banana the first time. He writes: “But what if I told you that if we go back in time under the exact same circumstances, you’ll pick the banana again?”

To which the compatibilist simply repies, “Yes, you‘ll pick the banana again. And …. so what?”

When we talk about tumors and whatnot changing human behavior, even turning them into pedophiles, again … so what? You are your brain. If your brain changes you change because you and your brain are one and the same.

Only a dualist denies this — i.e., an exponent of libertrianism or contra-causal free will. Once again we see that the attack of the so-called expert above is entirely irrelevent to compatibilism. I wonder if DBT will ever learn this?

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Determinism cannot exclude any event. It cannot exclude choosing any more than it can exclude a tree growing or the rain falling or anything else that happens.

Well, yes. It's how determinism is defined. Nothing within the system can be excluded.

Which of course has described implications for the notion of free will'

Only for the notion of "free will" defined as "a choice we make that is free from cause and effect".

But the implication for "free will" defined as "a choice we make that is free of coercion and undue influence" is quite different. This notion of "free will" is a deterministic event that is reliably caused by prior events, just like every other event. The implication of determinism for this notion of "free will" is that it must necessarily happen, exactly as it does happen, without deviation.

In other words, this operational free will is just as embedded in determinism as every other event that ever happens. And this is an entirely different implication than the one that applies to "freedom from cause and effect".

Implications that effectively rule out the idea of free will within a deterministic system.

The implication of determinism for "freedom from causal necessity" is that no such thing exists.
The implication of determinism for "freedom from coercion and undue influence" is that it inevitably exists.

The implications have been described too many times.

Indeed. But you insist upon defining free will as "freedom from causal necessity", while ignoring the ordinary free will which is nothing more than "freedom from coercion and undue influence".

And because you fail to recognize operational free will, you cavalierly claim that free will cannot exist within a deterministic system. And I must repeatedly explain to you why the ordinary notion of free will, the one that people understand and correctly use all the time, is a real event within a deterministic system.

But you choose not to hear this.

The brain, according to the definition, is subject to determinism.

Using the wrong metaphors can distort the truth. The brain is not "subject to determinism". The brain simply "functions deterministically". Everything that happens within our brain, every neuron firing, every thought and feeling we experience, is reliably caused by prior neurons firing, and prior thoughts and feelings.

The proper metaphor is not determinism being the "king" of the brain, but rather the brain itself being determinism exercising control over other objects. For example, I filled a cup with water to take my morning pills. My brain controlled these events, and it did so deterministically.

My brain is simply doing what it naturally does. Neither the laws of nature nor determinism are external "agents" controlling what I do. They are simply me, doing what I naturally do.

Quite simply, if the world is deterministic, the brain being inseparable from the world and its objects and events, is deterministic.

The brain is a separate object, just like every other object is a separate object. So, let's not start by smushing all of the objects together.

The brain, like every other object, operates deterministically as it interacts with other objects and forces to produce events. And even the events within the brain, the sequences of thoughts and feelings, occur deterministically.

Consequently, what it does, its abilities, faculties, thoughts and action is determined - basically - by environment, inputs and memory function, a system where free will plays no part in thought or response.

The brain's perception manages inputs. The brain's memory keeps track of things. The brain's intentions keep it on track. The brain's decision making controls every deliberate action.

The environment does not micromanage the brain's activities. The brain itself does that through its own perception, memory, intention, and decision making functions.

When the brain decides for us what we will do, while free of coercion and undue influence, it is a "freely chosen will", or simply "free will".

Free will is obviously not free from cause and effect, but only free from coercion and other forms of undue influence. And this operational free will is perfectly compatible with a world of perfectly reliable cause and effect.

The story you quoted, about people whose behavior was altered by a brain tumor, demonstrates the notion of undue influence. An undue influence is any extraordinary influence that prevents you from deciding for yourself what you will do. These are cases where a person is not acting of their own free will, and it is the operational notion of free will that is used precisely to make such distinctions.

Determinism itself never makes any meaningful or relevant distinction between events. Because determinism is such a useless notion, it seldom comes up when dealing with real-life scenarios. Determinism is a logical fact, derived from the presumption of a world of perfectly reliable causation. However, it is neither a meaningful nor a relevant fact. And this is why the intelligent human mind simply acknowledges it, and then ignores it.

 

[The AntiChris]

Once again we see that the attack of the so-called expert above is entirely irrelevent to compatibilism. I wonder if DBT will ever learn this?

He hasn't for the many years I've been attempting to have a meaningful exchange with him.

You have to understand that for DBT 'free will' means (and can only mean) libertarian/contra-causal free will. DBT refuses to accept that anything other than contra-causal free will can possibly be labelled 'free will'.

Part of the problem here is DBT's misunderstanding of how word usage and meaning work. He honestly believes that 'free will' has an intrinsic meaning completely independent of how anybody might use those words. This applies equally to his idiosyncratic use of the word 'choose'.

 

[Jarhyn]

Once again we see that the attack of the so-called expert above is entirely irrelevent to compatibilism. I wonder if DBT will ever learn this?

He hasn't for the many years I've been attempting to have a meaningful exchange with him.

You have to understand that for DBT 'free will' means (and can only mean) libertarian/contra-causal free will. DBT refuses to accept that anything other than contra-causal free will can possibly be labelled 'free will'.

Part of the problem here is DBT's misunderstanding of how word usage and meaning work. He honestly believes that 'free will' has an intrinsic meaning completely independent of how anybody might use those words. This applies equally to his idiosyncratic use of the word 'choose'.

That's why I keep asking DBT whether my description of a series of events is contra-causal.

Of course the point is that there is a choice happening there, but it's presented as a construction of the pieces of a compatibilist choice function.

Then we can explore error space on the difference of approximation.

 

[pood]

Once again we see that the attack of the so-called expert above is entirely irrelevent to compatibilism. I wonder if DBT will ever learn this?

He hasn't for the many years I've been attempting to have a meaningful exchange with him.

You have to understand that for DBT 'free will' means (and can only mean) libertarian/contra-causal free will. DBT refuses to accept that anything other than contra-causal free will can possibly be labelled 'free will'.

Part of the problem here is DBT's misunderstanding of how word usage and meaning work. He honestly believes that 'free will' has an intrinsic meaning completely independent of how anybody might use those words. This applies equally to his idiosyncratic use of the word 'choose'.

Yes, I think you’re right, but what I can‘t understand is why he links to articles that attack contra-causal free will when none of the people here, except for one who arrived recently, believe in contra-causal free will!

 

[The AntiChris]

Once again we see that the attack of the so-called expert above is entirely irrelevent to compatibilism. I wonder if DBT will ever learn this?

He hasn't for the many years I've been attempting to have a meaningful exchange with him.

You have to understand that for DBT 'free will' means (and can only mean) libertarian/contra-causal free will. DBT refuses to accept that anything other than contra-causal free will can possibly be labelled 'free will'.

Part of the problem here is DBT's misunderstanding of how word usage and meaning work. He honestly believes that 'free will' has an intrinsic meaning completely independent of how anybody might use those words. This applies equally to his idiosyncratic use of the word 'choose'.

Yes, I think you’re right, but what I can‘t understand is why he links to articles that attack contra-causal free will when none of the people here, except for one who arrived recently, believe in contra-causal free will!

Because contra-causal free will is the only kind of free will he recognises.

No matter how often or how painstakingly compatibilism is explained to him, the only thing he hears is ,what he perceives to be, a defense of absurd contra causal free will.

 

[pood]

Once again we see that the attack of the so-called expert above is entirely irrelevent to compatibilism. I wonder if DBT will ever learn this?

He hasn't for the many years I've been attempting to have a meaningful exchange with him.

You have to understand that for DBT 'free will' means (and can only mean) libertarian/contra-causal free will. DBT refuses to accept that anything other than contra-causal free will can possibly be labelled 'free will'.

Part of the problem here is DBT's misunderstanding of how word usage and meaning work. He honestly believes that 'free will' has an intrinsic meaning completely independent of how anybody might use those words. This applies equally to his idiosyncratic use of the word 'choose'.

Yes, I think you’re right, but what I can‘t understand is why he links to articles that attack contra-causal free will when none of the people here, except for one who arrived recently, believe in contra-causal free will!

Because contra-causal free will is the only kind of free will he recognises.

No matter how often or how painstakingly compatibilism is explained to him, the only thing he hears is ,what he perceives to be, a defense of absurd contra causal free will.

Well, in that case, it seems he could skip all the articles attacking contra-causal free will and just say to us compatibilists, :”I don’t recognize compatibilism as a valid account of free will.” Either that, or link to articles specifically targeting compatibilism.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Well, in that case, it seems he could skip all the articles attacking contra-causal free will and just say to us compatibilists, :”I don’t recognize compatibilism as a valid account of free will.” Either that, or link to articles specifically targeting compatibilism.

To be fair, he has also quoted articles that specifically target compatibilism. However, these are generally opinion pieces by other philosophers.

 

[pood]

Well, in that case, it seems he could skip all the articles attacking contra-causal free will and just say to us compatibilists, :”I don’t recognize compatibilism as a valid account of free will.” Either that, or link to articles specifically targeting compatibilism.

To be fair, he has also quoted articles that specifically target compatibilism. However, these are generally opinion pieces by other philosophers.

I suppose he has, but his linked material seems largely to target libertarian free will. It seems like he can’t make a distinction between soft determinism and contra-causal free will.

 

[pood]

From DBT’s linked article, there is this bit:

The results of this research only proves one thing. A few seconds before you pick the banana or the apple, your brain makes that decision for you.

Apart from the fact that the author has caricatured Libet’s work, what does the above mean? You are you brain. Your brain is you. And so the following can be accurately translated as:

The results of this research only proves one thing. A few seconds before you pick the banana or the apple, you make that decision for you.

You make that decision for you! Hmm, sounds like free will.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

From DBT’s linked article, there is this bit:

The results of this research only proves one thing. A few seconds before you pick the banana or the apple, your brain makes that decision for you.

Apart from the fact that the author has caricatured Libet’s work, what does the above mean? You are you brain. Your brain is you. And so the following can be accurately translated as:

The results of this research only proves one thing. A few seconds before you pick the banana or the apple, you make that decision for you.

You make that decision for you! Hmm, sounds like free will.

I think it's actually better than that. Your history of prior causes is ... your history, something that you have been involved in creating all of your life. It is not just a few seconds before you pick the banana or the apple, it's also your own stable preferences (still you) current perceptions (still you) and current choosing (performed by no other object in the universe but you).

And determinism simply confirms that all of this stuff would necessarily be you.

 

[The AntiChris]

Well, in that case, it seems he could.....just say to us compatibilists, :”I don’t recognize compatibilism as a valid account of free will.”

That's what he has been saying.

 

[DBT]

Determinism includes everything within the system.

That's what I've been saying, over and over!

It is what I have been saying all along. I have said it or alluded to it in practically every post I have made.

Determinism cannot exclude any event. It cannot exclude choosing any more than it can exclude a tree growing or the rain falling or anything else that happens. We cannot pretend that trees don't grow or that people don't chop them down to build houses. We cannot pretend that rain doesn't fall or that people don't invent umbrellas to stay dry.

And most important, we cannot pretend that the people in the restaurant are not choosing what they will have for dinner, while free of coercion and undue influence.

Well, yes. It's how determinism is defined. Nothing within the system can be excluded.

Which of course has described implications for the notion of free will'

Implications that effectively rule out the idea of free will within a deterministic system.

The implications have been described too many times.

The brain, according to the definition, is subject to determinism.

Using the wrong metaphors can distort the truth. The brain is not "subject to determinism". The brain simply "functions deterministically". Everything that happens within our brain, every neuron firing, every thought and feeling we experience, is reliably caused by prior neurons firing, and prior thoughts and feelings.

The proper metaphor is not determinism being the "king" of the brain, but rather the brain itself being determinism exercising control over other objects. For example, I filled a cup with water to take my morning pills. My brain controlled these events, and it did so deterministically.

My brain is simply doing what it naturally does. Neither the laws of nature nor determinism are external "agents" controlling what I do. They are simply me, doing what I naturally do.

Quite simply, if the world is deterministic, the brain being inseparable from the world and its objects and events, is deterministic. Consequently, what it does, its abilities, faculties, thoughts and action is determined - basically - by environment, inputs and memory function, a system where free will plays no part in thought or response.


The illusion of free will:
''How can we all truly have the freedom to decide our fate when we’re not dealt equal cards from the start? And it’s not just the cards we’re dealt, it’s also the ability to play those cards. Some are simply born better bluffers than others.

When you look at the concept of free will critically, the whole idea seems to crumble pretty quickly. In fact, researchers have come to the conclusion that believing in free will is like believing in religion, neither of them agree with the laws of physics. Think about it, if free will truly exists and if choice is not just a chemical process, then why can things like alcohol and antipsychotics completely change a person’s behavior?

Even worse, we’ve seen brain tumors turn people from pediatricians to pedophiles. Domenico Mattiello was once a respected pediatrician. For 30 years, he was loved by his patients and adored by their parents and everyone in the society. In a shocking turn of events, however, in 2012, he began facing trial after being accused of making pedophilic advances towards his female patients.

Neuroscientific research showed that Mattielo had a 4-inch tumor growing at the base of his brain that changed his behavior.

In 2002, a similar thing happened to an American school teacher. He suddenly started having pedophilic urges towards his step-daughter and was arrested. Then it was discovered that he had an egg-sized tumor growing in the part of his brain that was supposed to be responsible for decision-making. After the tumor got removed, the man’s pedophilic urges stopped completely, and he was able to return to his family.

If free will exists, why can removing a tumor change a person’s choice? Is it then possible that by altering brain chemistry or physical composition, we can completely change a person’s beliefs, ideologies, and choices without the person being able to do anything about it?''

DBT doesn’t understand that every single expert he quotes — all of them, including the link above — are attacking contra-causal or libertarian free will, and not compatibilist free will.

In the link above, the author has some bit about choosing a banana or an apple, and then rewinding the tape of history and replaying it. Suppose you chose a banana the first time. He writes: “But what if I told you that if we go back in time under the exact same circumstances, you’ll pick the banana again?”

To which the compatibilist simply repies, “Yes, you‘ll pick the banana again. And …. so what?”

When we talk about tumors and whatnot changing human behavior, even turning them into pedophiles, again … so what? You are your brain. If your brain changes you change because you and your brain are one and the same.

Only a dualist denies this — i.e., an exponent of libertrianism or contra-causal free will. Once again we see that the attack of the so-called expert above is entirely irrelevent to compatibilism. I wonder if DBT will ever learn this?

You assume too much.

You fail to grasp that I'm simply arguing against compatibilism in relation to the definition of determinism given by compatibilists, ie,, incompatibilism....that determinism is not compatible with the notion of free will.

That the definition of free will as defined by compatibilists is flawed.

You are either not reading my posts, or you interpret what is said in a way that suits your agenda of dismissal.

 

[DBT]

From DBT’s linked article, there is this bit:

The results of this research only proves one thing. A few seconds before you pick the banana or the apple, your brain makes that decision for you.

Apart from the fact that the author has caricatured Libet’s work, what does the above mean? You are you brain. Your brain is you. And so the following can be accurately translated as:

The results of this research only proves one thing. A few seconds before you pick the banana or the apple, you make that decision for you.

You make that decision for you! Hmm, sounds like free will.

It's basic physics.

The brain must first acquire information via its senses before distributing and processing the information milliseconds prior to action initiation and conscious experience of that body information, the events happening around us.

It can't be any other way.

Your objections have no merit.

 

[Jarhyn]

processing the information

"Making a decision".

You're not going to be able to get away from the choice just by using more obscure words to describe it.

The process run upon the information is called a choice.

I described it.

It does not actually require deviations or randomness, as evidenced by the fact that you have failed to find it every time when pressed.

You could shut me up by effectively highlighting it in red.

All events develop or evolve as they must without deviation,

You conveniently overlook the obvious: life and the world makes you what you are and how you think and respond

No, you have dodged the question. I'll get to that and in fact that is also answered in my post below, but first, please highlight where "randomness" or "deviation" is happening, because FIRST THINGS FIRST, you need to stop making invalid arguments about randomness and deviation.

so find the randomness and deviation, or stop bringing up randomness and deviation.

hilight it in red

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

Crock, your own definition of determinism entails a fixed system, a series of events that develop without deviation

So, according to your definition....as there is ''no randomness involved in the development of future states of the system,''

Go ahead. Find the reference to randomness or deviation, if you happen to believe there is one. Highlight it in red.

entailed, fixed, unchangeable

So it won't, which doesn't mean it can't re:

1. The dwarf is there, and I am going to make them do something, thus I stop my sub-universe and save it's state.

2. I copy the state.

3. I blindly write, to each of the copies, a will into the dwarf's head.

4. I run the system forward to see what is going to happen in each.

5. I find out all the things that the dwarf can "possibly" do, as an extension of the original state. this takes a great deal of time. This actually maps out a function U(x), where x is what is known in math as a "free variable". The free variable here is "the contents of the dwarf's head."

6. Armed with this U(x) function definition on the contents of the dwarf's head, I then set U(x) equal to the desired contents and then solve for x. This tells me what momentary x leads to the desired outcome.

7. I then put x in the dwarf's head, leaving behind the original universe entirely, and continuing with this one in which I mind controlled the dwarf.

Then the next part is that you need to realize there needs be no god or actual mind control going on here because the "dwarf" in our reality has the power to approximate U well enough, in macrophysical scale, to run this process themselves without having to stop time to run the solution.

The end result ends up being something like:


1. I am going to make ME do something, thus I stop my activity and think quickly, before I must make a decision.

2. I imagine a universe as macrophysics describes it, several times. (I make a copy).

3. I blindly write, to each of the copies, a series of stated actions. (I write a will into my own hypothetical head).

4. I run the system forward to see what is going to happen in each.

5. I find out all the things that the I can "possibly" do, in this hypothetical future moment, as an extension of the original state. this takes a little time, but not enough to actually bring me to the real future moment in which a decision must be made. This actually maps out a function U(x), where x is what is known in math as a "free variable". The free variable here is "the contents of my decision".

6. Armed with this approximal U(x) function definition on the contents of the my own head head, I then set U(x) equal to the desired contents and then solve for x. This tells me what momentary x leads to the desired outcome.

7. I then put x in the part of my own head that represents the region of free variance, thus making the decision leaving behind the past entirely, and continuing with this future in which I effectively mind controlled myself.

Nowhere is there randomness. There is only linear deterministic calculation happening here.

As you can see, it's not illusory, it's just approximal.

It's necessary approximal nature due to Incompleteness does not in fact change that it is the same fundamental operation being done, merely with approximal data.

This has all been dealt with.

Funny, I keep quoting deeper and deeper into the thread and yet I see no additional highlighting in red.