Demystifying Determinism

[pood]

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

Typical condescending and insulting response.

As so often happens, you are not answering my question.

I am asking you why you so often link to essays that attack libertarian free will. I am not a libertarian. Neither is Marvin. Neither is Jarhyn. So why do you link to posts attacking libertarianism? I suspect you don’t really know the difference beteween libertarianism and compatibilism, and just kind of conflate the two into an incohrent mishmash.

 

[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.

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.

Irrelevant.

First, the author skips over the fact that Libet found that the conscious mind has a veto power over subconscious decisions. Apart from that, “processing the information” is just a fancy way of saying evaluating and choosing.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

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.

Is this continual display really necessary?

 

[Jarhyn]

Is this continual display really necessary?

Until DBT either stops claiming we are discussing deviation and/or randomness, or finds the deviation/randomness they claim we are referencing when we say "choice".

Their claims have exactly one response as regards deviation/randomness: either point it out or quit insisting it's there.

At this point, a direct acknowledgement is what is necessary.

They could have just quit on it quietly after the first few times we explained we didn't rely on deviation/randomness but they revive the PRATT in nearly every single post. So now it's down to "show it."

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Is this continual display really necessary?

Until DBT either stops claiming we are discussing deviation and/or randomness, or finds the deviation/randomness they claim we are referencing when we say "choice".

Their claims have exactly one response as regards deviation/randomness: either point it out or quit insisting it's there.

At this point, a direct acknowledgement is what is necessary.

They could have just quit on it quietly after the first few times we explained we didn't rely on deviation/randomness but they revive the PRATT in nearly every single post. So now it's down to "show it."

Perhaps you could simply challenge them to show it, without posting a big block of text that everyone has to page through to get to the next comment?

 

[Jarhyn]

Is this continual display really necessary?

Until DBT either stops claiming we are discussing deviation and/or randomness, or finds the deviation/randomness they claim we are referencing when we say "choice".

Their claims have exactly one response as regards deviation/randomness: either point it out or quit insisting it's there.

At this point, a direct acknowledgement is what is necessary.

They could have just quit on it quietly after the first few times we explained we didn't rely on deviation/randomness but they revive the PRATT in nearly every single post. So now it's down to "show it."

Perhaps you could simply challenge them to show it, without posting a big block of text that everyone has to page through to get to the next comment?

They want to get way from it and try to turn toward deviation and randomness as if either of these things has anything to do with certainty.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

They want to get way from it and try to turn toward deviation and randomness as if either of these things has anything to do with certainty.

You seem to be accusing DBT, of accusing you, of supporting a random universe. It seems like you are demanding that DBT print a retraction. That doesn't seem likely to happen.

Oh, and you can simply tell him to show something without reprinting the block for him.

 

[Jarhyn]

They want to get way from it and try to turn toward deviation and randomness as if either of these things has anything to do with certainty.

You seem to be accusing DBT, of accusing you, of supporting a random universe. It seems like you are demanding that DBT print a retraction. That doesn't seem likely to happen.

Oh, and you can simply tell him to show something without reprinting the block for him.

The point is to keep them from trying to claim that it is irrelevant without providing the context of what they are calling irrelevant.

It accusatory. I am demanding a retraction.

The point is that it is several times containing DBT's claim to the relevance of deviation and randomness in our claims.

This is in that exchange frequently referenced.

It is not the least bit honest to claim my posts are irrelevant, as they have repeatedly, when even now I can pick out their references to why they think it is relevant.

"The given terms and conditions of". That's what they bring up repeatedly. Well, find where the given terms and conditions are in that, I say.

All DBT was asked to do was hilight a section in red, while explaining why they think it relies on some idea of deviation or randomness, which they are fond of mentioning, and which would have been resolvable so much less painfully the first time that this was explained or asked.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

They want to get way from it and try to turn toward deviation and randomness as if either of these things has anything to do with certainty.

You seem to be accusing DBT, of accusing you, of supporting a random universe. It seems like you are demanding that DBT print a retraction. That doesn't seem likely to happen.

Oh, and you can simply tell him to show something without reprinting the block for him.

The point is to keep them from trying to claim that it is irrelevant without providing the context of what they are calling irrelevant.

It accusatory. I am demanding a retraction.

The point is that it is several times containing DBT's claim to the relevance of deviation and randomness in our claims.

This is in that exchange frequently referenced.

It is not the least bit honest to claim my posts are irrelevant, as they have repeatedly, when even now I can pick out their references to why they think it is relevant.

"The given terms and conditions of". That's what they bring up repeatedly. Well, find where the given terms and conditions are in that, I say.

All DBT was asked to do was hilight a section in red, while explaining why they think it relies on some idea of deviation or randomness, which they are fond of mentioning, and which would have been resolvable so much less painfully the first time that this was explained or asked.

So, then, he was unable to do what you asked. Then you win the point and he loses it. Where the heck is that scoreboard anyway? Here, I'll go back and like your post.

 

[Jarhyn]

They want to get way from it and try to turn toward deviation and randomness as if either of these things has anything to do with certainty.

You seem to be accusing DBT, of accusing you, of supporting a random universe. It seems like you are demanding that DBT print a retraction. That doesn't seem likely to happen.

Oh, and you can simply tell him to show something without reprinting the block for him.

The point is to keep them from trying to claim that it is irrelevant without providing the context of what they are calling irrelevant.

It accusatory. I am demanding a retraction.

The point is that it is several times containing DBT's claim to the relevance of deviation and randomness in our claims.

This is in that exchange frequently referenced.

It is not the least bit honest to claim my posts are irrelevant, as they have repeatedly, when even now I can pick out their references to why they think it is relevant.

"The given terms and conditions of". That's what they bring up repeatedly. Well, find where the given terms and conditions are in that, I say.

All DBT was asked to do was hilight a section in red, while explaining why they think it relies on some idea of deviation or randomness, which they are fond of mentioning, and which would have been resolvable so much less painfully the first time that this was explained or asked.

So, then, he was unable to do what you asked. Then you win the point and he loses it. Where the heck is that scoreboard anyway? Here, I'll go back and like your post.

It's not about scores.

The point is that being unable to do as I ask here, acknowledging that, is exactly where they need to be to turn this corner and step past these "terms and conditions" that they keep bringing up as if they matter to what we are discussing.

Once we can establish for both sides that we aren't talking about that and that that doesn't have anything to do with what compatibilists are talking about, then we will be in a much better place to talk about the rest of it.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

It's not about scores.

The point is that being unable to do as I ask here, acknowledging that, is exactly where they need to be to turn this corner and step past these "terms and conditions" that they keep bringing up as if they matter to what we are discussing.

Once we can establish for both sides that we aren't talking about that and that that doesn't have anything to do with what compatibilists are talking about, then we will be in a much better place to talk about the rest of it.

I'm pretty sure that there is no perfect agreement between any two people on this thread. Different people are taking different approaches to the problem. We find common ground in many areas and yet there are still many areas where each person's approach is different.

For example, Pood and I disagree as to whether it is necessary to invoke the "modal fallacy". You and I disagree as to the value of computer analogies. And I'm not sure that anyone understands the difference between "can" and "will" as well as I do. (I still find myself drawn to say cannot when I should say will not).

DBT and I agree about certain aspects of determinism and disagree about other aspects. And I think it is pretty clear that he is not buying into the operational definition of free will, but still insists upon some kind of "free floating will", untethered to cause and effect.

If I recall correctly, DBT is arguing that free will and determinism are incompatible, and is not committed to the notion that determinism is actually true. Kylie was arguing that determinism was definitely false.

Personally, I find it most likely that we live in a world of perfectly reliable cause and effect, and that free will is a deterministic event.

 

[DBT]

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

Typical condescending and insulting response.

Look at your own posts to see what condescension looks like.

As so often happens, you are not answering my question.

As it happens, I have answered practically every aspect of compatibilism, determinism, including various other versions of free will.

The subject has been thoroughly addressed by numerous authors that I have quoted and cited, including my contribution.

I am asking you why you so often link to essays that attack libertarian free will. I am not a libertarian. Neither is Marvin. Neither is Jarhyn. So why do you link to posts attacking libertarianism? I suspect you don’t really know the difference beteween libertarianism and compatibilism, and just kind of conflate the two into an incohrent mishmash.

Most of what I have posted is related to compatibilism. The subject is not complete without considering other versions of free will.

Nevertheless, most of the material I have posted dealt with compatibilism.

The problems with compatibilism have been thoroughly addressed.

Now its just gone into loop mode, an endless rehash.

 

[Jarhyn]

As it happens, I have answered practically every aspect of compatibilism, determinism, including various other versions of free will

No, you didn't, because this thing you think is a shotgun loaded with silver bullets is just a pop gun with which you can't even manage to rouse @bilby's dog.

The subject has been thoroughly addressed by numerous authors that I have quoted and cited, including my contribution.

We keep pointing out how you and all these other authors only ever manage to attack libertarian free will, which nobody here believes in and which one of the discussion here on free will touches.

You clearly don't understand your quotations because every time, either Antichris, or Pood, or I read all of that garbage and discover it only actually attacks libertarian free will.

Until you can figure out how to make @bilby's dog misbehave, however, your arguments will continue to fall flat.

most of the material I have posted dealt with compatibilism.

Like you, it claimed to, but did not. Like you, those authors continually fall back to believing that their attacks on libertarianism are attacks on compatibilism.

They, much like you, don't understand why @bilby's dog cannot disobey his owner. They think "if the dog cannot disobey, then they do not have free will!"

But this is a failure of understanding, because the fact that the dog cannot disobey rather means they cannot escape their free will.

If you wish to actually thoroughly address what you see as problems (deviation, randomness), find, in that example of a choice being made, where I necessitate that deviation and randomness are given a say!

The deviation is an illusion. The choice is real.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

The problems with compatibilism have been thoroughly addressed.

And I'm pretty sure that several of us have thoroughly addressed and resolved all of those problems, while also pointing out the rather huge problems with incompatibilism (the paradoxes, the destruction of meaning, the shrinking dictionary, the contradictions of empirical reality, etc.).

 

[Jarhyn]

Personally, I find it most likely that we live in a world of perfectly reliable cause and effect, and that free will is a deterministic event.

Interesting enough FDI bringing up Sabine Hossenfelder was really important here because Superdeterminism is kind of like Last Thursdayism, and because it is, because superdeterminism is non-disprovable, it becomes a really niche philosophical topic, same as last Thursdayism or the FSM.

Essentially it means that all systems may be represented as a deterministic progression, so for  any system to be described as containing choices, at least some deterministic systems must be describable as containing choices.

If there are exactly zero deterministic systems containing choices, then there are exactly zero systems at all anywhere containing choices.

This is a formalization of some of the things you have said.

At any rate, I really want to see DBT find the deviation or randomness in that post I made or admit it's not there so that I can go into the discussion of why that series of events, as it is described, implies a functional desert-responsibility ethics.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Personally, I find it most likely that we live in a world of perfectly reliable cause and effect, and that free will is a deterministic event.

Interesting enough FDI bringing up Sabine Hossenfelder was really important here because Superdeterminism is kind of like Last Thursdayism, and because it is, because superdeterminism is non-disprovable, it becomes a really niche philosophical topic, same as last Thursdayism or the FSM.

Essentially it means that all systems may be represented as a deterministic progression, so for  any system to be described as containing choices, at least some deterministic systems must be describable as containing choices.

If there are exactly zero deterministic systems containing choices, then there are exactly zero systems at all anywhere containing choices.

This is a formalization of some of the things you have said.

At any rate, I really want to see DBT find the deviation or randomness in that post I made or admit it's not there so that I can go into the discussion of why that series of events, as it is described, implies a functional desert-responsibility ethics.

I've seen Sabine's youtube video and her understanding of free will is the same hard determinist's spiel: that free will must be free from causal necessity. She does not impress me. I would be having exactly the same discussion with her that I am currently having with DBT.

 

[Jarhyn]

Personally, I find it most likely that we live in a world of perfectly reliable cause and effect, and that free will is a deterministic event.

Interesting enough FDI bringing up Sabine Hossenfelder was really important here because Superdeterminism is kind of like Last Thursdayism, and because it is, because superdeterminism is non-disprovable, it becomes a really niche philosophical topic, same as last Thursdayism or the FSM.

Essentially it means that all systems may be represented as a deterministic progression, so for  any system to be described as containing choices, at least some deterministic systems must be describable as containing choices.

If there are exactly zero deterministic systems containing choices, then there are exactly zero systems at all anywhere containing choices.

This is a formalization of some of the things you have said.

At any rate, I really want to see DBT find the deviation or randomness in that post I made or admit it's not there so that I can go into the discussion of why that series of events, as it is described, implies a functional desert-responsibility ethics.

I've seen Sabine's youtube video and her understanding of free will is the same hard determinist's spiel: that free will must be free from causal necessity. She does not impress me. I would be having exactly the same discussion with her that I am currently having with DBT.

It's not about her attacks on free will. Those are as you say utter garbage.

It's her attacks on indeterminism that are important here with respect to Superdeterminism! They are in many respects a championing achievement of mathematics!

They answer that all systems in our entire set of accessible mathematics are deterministic!

It's a pretty cool observation.

As you observe it has no conflict it actually may express against compatibilism. Any such conflict would be imagined.

It neatly decapitates libertarian free will, however. It logically disproves it.

Superdeterminism is The Magical Sword of Libertarian Free Will slaying +Infinity.

No doubt about it.

Here the monster is deterministic compatibilist free will. It's a completely different animal.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Personally, I find it most likely that we live in a world of perfectly reliable cause and effect, and that free will is a deterministic event.

Interesting enough FDI bringing up Sabine Hossenfelder was really important here because Superdeterminism is kind of like Last Thursdayism, and because it is, because superdeterminism is non-disprovable, it becomes a really niche philosophical topic, same as last Thursdayism or the FSM.

Essentially it means that all systems may be represented as a deterministic progression, so for  any system to be described as containing choices, at least some deterministic systems must be describable as containing choices.

If there are exactly zero deterministic systems containing choices, then there are exactly zero systems at all anywhere containing choices.

This is a formalization of some of the things you have said.

At any rate, I really want to see DBT find the deviation or randomness in that post I made or admit it's not there so that I can go into the discussion of why that series of events, as it is described, implies a functional desert-responsibility ethics.

I've seen Sabine's youtube video and her understanding of free will is the same hard determinist's spiel: that free will must be free from causal necessity. She does not impress me. I would be having exactly the same discussion with her that I am currently having with DBT.

It's not about her attacks on free will. Those are as you say utter garbage.

It's her attacks on indeterminism that are important here with respect to Superdeterminism! They are in many respects a championing achievement of mathematics!

They answer that all systems in our entire set of accessible mathematics are deterministic!

It's a pretty cool observation.

As you observe it has no conflict it actually may express against compatibilism. Any such conflict would be imagined.

It neatly decapitates libertarian free will, however. It logically disproves it.

Superdeterminism is The Magical Sword of Libertarian Free Will slaying +Infinity.

No doubt about it.

Here the monster is deterministic compatibilist free will. It's a completely different animal.

I don't think determinism needs to be super-sized. And I view math as a language, not a causal agent. It is neither an object nor a force.

Nor do I wish to decapitate libertarian free will. I'd rather explain determinism to them in a non-threatening way, that preserves operational free will. And then everyone would be working from the same definitions and the same understanding.

 

[Jarhyn]

Personally, I find it most likely that we live in a world of perfectly reliable cause and effect, and that free will is a deterministic event.

Interesting enough FDI bringing up Sabine Hossenfelder was really important here because Superdeterminism is kind of like Last Thursdayism, and because it is, because superdeterminism is non-disprovable, it becomes a really niche philosophical topic, same as last Thursdayism or the FSM.

Essentially it means that all systems may be represented as a deterministic progression, so for  any system to be described as containing choices, at least some deterministic systems must be describable as containing choices.

If there are exactly zero deterministic systems containing choices, then there are exactly zero systems at all anywhere containing choices.

This is a formalization of some of the things you have said.

At any rate, I really want to see DBT find the deviation or randomness in that post I made or admit it's not there so that I can go into the discussion of why that series of events, as it is described, implies a functional desert-responsibility ethics.

I've seen Sabine's youtube video and her understanding of free will is the same hard determinist's spiel: that free will must be free from causal necessity. She does not impress me. I would be having exactly the same discussion with her that I am currently having with DBT.

It's not about her attacks on free will. Those are as you say utter garbage.

It's her attacks on indeterminism that are important here with respect to Superdeterminism! They are in many respects a championing achievement of mathematics!

They answer that all systems in our entire set of accessible mathematics are deterministic!

It's a pretty cool observation.

As you observe it has no conflict it actually may express against compatibilism. Any such conflict would be imagined.

It neatly decapitates libertarian free will, however. It logically disproves it.

Superdeterminism is The Magical Sword of Libertarian Free Will slaying +Infinity.

No doubt about it.

Here the monster is deterministic compatibilist free will. It's a completely different animal.

I don't think determinism needs to be super-sized. And I view math as a language, not a causal agent. It is neither an object nor a force.

Nor do I wish to decapitate libertarian free will. I'd rather explain determinism to them in a non-threatening way, that preserves operational free will. And then everyone would be working from the same definitions and the same understanding.

Math is useful because if you can say a proposition that must be true of some groups of math, and that something is in that group then the proposition is true of that something.

You may not wish to perform the decapitation, but it has been no less performed.

But as stated, that sword does not function against compatibilist free will.

 

[DBT]

The problems with compatibilism have been thoroughly addressed.

And I'm pretty sure that several of us have thoroughly addressed and resolved all of those problems, while also pointing out the rather huge problems with incompatibilism (the paradoxes, the destruction of meaning, the shrinking dictionary, the contradictions of empirical reality, etc.).

The problems with compatibilism have not been resolved. It's wishful thinking to believe it.

Unlike compatibilism, which is based on carefully defining 'free will' in order to give it appearance of compatibility, incompatibilism is based on determinism as it is defined and its implications, entailment, a fixed past, present and future, no alternate options possible, etc, etc.....