Demystifying Determinism

[Jarhyn]

There are many other forms of information processing, such as the simple math operation of adding a column of numbers to produce a sum. All of it is information processing

Again, we differ here. This is still choice:

Choose from (probably the integers, maybe the reals, maybe even the complex numbers) the number that represents the final operative result of "+" given this input set.

Or, "choose the number that resolves the equation n.initial+n.(initial+1)+...n.final="

It is a choice upon a set defined by a fixed process.

The only reason we differentiate it apparently in language is because we need to be able to quickly know whether we're talking about people eating salads or numbers and sums.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

There are many other forms of information processing, such as the simple math operation of adding a column of numbers to produce a sum. All of it is information processing

Again, we differ here. This is still choice:

Choose from (probably the integers, maybe the reals, maybe even the complex numbers) the number that represents the final operative result of "+" given this input set.

Or, "choose the number that resolves the equation n.initial+n.(initial+1)+...n.final="

It is a choice upon a set defined by a fixed process.

The only reason we differentiate it apparently in language is because we need to be able to quickly know whether we're talking about people eating salads or numbers and sums.

So, you want to say that every mental process is a form of "choosing"? That's interesting, but it kind of supports DBT's generalizing everything as "information processing", as a way of hiding deliberation and choosing. Your theory may be correct, but I don't see it helping this discussion, but rather generating a brand new discussion on another abstract topic.

 

[Jarhyn]

There are many other forms of information processing, such as the simple math operation of adding a column of numbers to produce a sum. All of it is information processing

Again, we differ here. This is still choice:

Choose from (probably the integers, maybe the reals, maybe even the complex numbers) the number that represents the final operative result of "+" given this input set.

Or, "choose the number that resolves the equation n.initial+n.(initial+1)+...n.final="

It is a choice upon a set defined by a fixed process.

The only reason we differentiate it apparently in language is because we need to be able to quickly know whether we're talking about people eating salads or numbers and sums.

So, you want to say that every mental process is a form of "choosing"? That's interesting, but it kind of supports DBT's generalizing everything as "information processing", as a way of hiding deliberation and choosing. Your theory may be correct, but I don't see it helping this discussion, but rather generating a brand new discussion on another abstract topic.

More, I don't want to hide it, I just want to observe that these are the same languages, and that DBT is attempting to hide it.

Choice is, in fact, an extremely abstract concept. Look at the "reasons to disbelieve the axiom of choice" thread in the math forums.

Choice as a concept is foundational to a huge number of very hard problems in math, and the whole discussion leads to some very weird conclusions about the very idea of randomness and "accessibility".

It's no mistake that one of the mathematicians in that discussion is studying a concept of "universes".

There was at one point an axiom of finite choice, but this axiom of finite choice was subsumed by other axioms. It's just a given in math that among finite domains, choice really exists, and is a concept that undergirds a lot of different fields of math.

It's also ridiculously abstract: in the discussion of representation theory selecting a subset from a set based on a process is one of the most general concepts, if not the most general of them.

If I imagine my whole lexical universe in motion, everything seems to turn on that one primary axis.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

There are many other forms of information processing, such as the simple math operation of adding a column of numbers to produce a sum. All of it is information processing

Again, we differ here. This is still choice:

Choose from (probably the integers, maybe the reals, maybe even the complex numbers) the number that represents the final operative result of "+" given this input set.

Or, "choose the number that resolves the equation n.initial+n.(initial+1)+...n.final="

It is a choice upon a set defined by a fixed process.

The only reason we differentiate it apparently in language is because we need to be able to quickly know whether we're talking about people eating salads or numbers and sums.

So, you want to say that every mental process is a form of "choosing"? That's interesting, but it kind of supports DBT's generalizing everything as "information processing", as a way of hiding deliberation and choosing. Your theory may be correct, but I don't see it helping this discussion, but rather generating a brand new discussion on another abstract topic.

More, I don't want to hide it, I just want to observe that these are the same languages, and that DBT is attempting to hide it.

Choice is, in fact, an extremely abstract concept. Look at the "reasons to disbelieve the axiom of choice" thread in the math forums.

Choice as a concept is foundational to a huge number of very hard problems in math, and the whole discussion leads to some very weird conclusions about the very idea of randomness and "accessibility".

It's no mistake that one of the mathematicians in that discussion is studying a concept of "universes".

There was at one point an axiom of finite choice, but this axiom of finite choice was subsumed by other axioms. It's just a given in math that among finite domains, choice really exists, and is a concept that undergirds a lot of different fields of math.

It's also ridiculously abstract: in the discussion of representation theory selecting a subset from a set based on a process is one of the most general concepts, if not the most general of them.

If I imagine my whole lexical universe in motion, everything seems to turn on that one primary axis.

I remember you saying something a while back, about marbles in a bag, and taking them out one at a time. But that would seem to be a randomizing algorithm, while human choice is determined by thoughts and feelings. Anyway, it is interesting that choice is a matter of mathematical study.

 

[Jarhyn]

There are many other forms of information processing, such as the simple math operation of adding a column of numbers to produce a sum. All of it is information processing

Again, we differ here. This is still choice:

Choose from (probably the integers, maybe the reals, maybe even the complex numbers) the number that represents the final operative result of "+" given this input set.

Or, "choose the number that resolves the equation n.initial+n.(initial+1)+...n.final="

It is a choice upon a set defined by a fixed process.

The only reason we differentiate it apparently in language is because we need to be able to quickly know whether we're talking about people eating salads or numbers and sums.

So, you want to say that every mental process is a form of "choosing"? That's interesting, but it kind of supports DBT's generalizing everything as "information processing", as a way of hiding deliberation and choosing. Your theory may be correct, but I don't see it helping this discussion, but rather generating a brand new discussion on another abstract topic.

More, I don't want to hide it, I just want to observe that these are the same languages, and that DBT is attempting to hide it.

Choice is, in fact, an extremely abstract concept. Look at the "reasons to disbelieve the axiom of choice" thread in the math forums.

Choice as a concept is foundational to a huge number of very hard problems in math, and the whole discussion leads to some very weird conclusions about the very idea of randomness and "accessibility".

It's no mistake that one of the mathematicians in that discussion is studying a concept of "universes".

There was at one point an axiom of finite choice, but this axiom of finite choice was subsumed by other axioms. It's just a given in math that among finite domains, choice really exists, and is a concept that undergirds a lot of different fields of math.

It's also ridiculously abstract: in the discussion of representation theory selecting a subset from a set based on a process is one of the most general concepts, if not the most general of them.

If I imagine my whole lexical universe in motion, everything seems to turn on that one primary axis.

I remember you saying something a while back, about marbles in a bag, and taking them out one at a time. But that would seem to be a randomizing algorithm, while human choice is determined by thoughts and feelings. Anyway, it is interesting that choice is a matter of mathematical study.

Well, a great many complexities go into the marble out of the bag. The function of selection is utterly chaotic.

The point was just that it didn't matter how you selected, just that the objects in the dance satisfied definitions of the players in our little game of representation: marbles become "possibilities", artifacts inside the bag; the bag becomes the "set boundary"; the marble that comes out, the choice.

Then we can do a series of operations using the logic we know applies to "choices", and "sets" of "possibilities" to say things that are logically true, things like "no object outside the set may be chosen by the operation, therefore because (blue marble) is not in the bag, (blue marble) may not be the choice".

No matter how you squirm, if you don't put the blue marble in, it will never come out of that bag.

Constraints in logical possibility imply constraints on what is reified. What is reified presents no such constraint against logical possibility.

 

[DBT]

You have yet to show that there is a choice when there are no alternatives

Clearly there are alternatives. On the menu there are 23 lines. Each of these lines is an "alternative". Clearly they exist. They are right there in literal black and white. At Bucca's, these alternatives are not even representatives, they are already-reified foods sitting before you.

Please pay attention to what is being explained.

There are multiple things that happen in the world, including determinism as a system.

But given that only one action/option can be realized in any given instance in time - this is according to your own definition/no randomness/no deviation - which is the determined action in that instance in time (no deviation), therefore there are no alternative actions possible in that instance in time, or any other given instance in time (no alternate actions, no deviation).

Which, again, is not to say that other things cannot happen at other times, they can and do wherever and whenever that action is determined.

Yet again: ''Determinism entails that, in a situation in which a person makes a certain decision or performs a certain action, it is impossible that he or she could have made any other decision or performed any other action. In other words, it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did.''

 

[DBT]

Deliberation necessarily happens, and all of the thoughts and feelings we have during deliberation necessarily happen as well. Causal necessity insures that choosing will happen and that we will be doing that choosing.

Deliberation is information processing.

Of course it is. Specifically, deliberation is the process of choosing from several alternatives what we will do, as happens in the restaurant when we order dinner from a menu.

Choice entails the possibility of doing otherwise, that you could have taken this or that option instead of the one taken.

Yet that's not how determinism works, where no matter how many apparent options are being presented, there is only one possible decision (not choice), the determined action.

That absence of alternatives turns decision making into entailment, not choice.

In other words, within a deterministic system information processing or 'decision making' is a process of entailment that does not involve choice, which requires the ability to have taken any one of a number of options.

That is the illusion of determinism and conscious perception....the illusion of what we call free will.

 

[Jarhyn]

Please pay attention to what is being explained.

Please quit accusing your mirror.

There are multiple things that happen in the world,

Such As you spouting word salad

including determinism as a system.

... Such as this.

But given that only one action/option can be realized in any given instance in time

Not true. One option can be reified AT a time, but many options can be reified IN a time.

I reify taking the pizza at time 1, taking the salad at time 2, the steak at time 3, and then in time 4, I have reified 3 options not 1, as they all awkwardly balance in my arms.

- this is according to your own definition/no randomness/no deviation -

Ignoring the sloppiness of the above for a second, yes.

which is the determined action in that instance in time

Yes, determined BECAUSE the entity that I am had a thought that said "gonna have some delicious regrets today". Much like my other post, it's kind of like that blue marble: if you don't put it in the bag, you can't take it out. So it was determined in that instance in time because it was previously determined that I MUST make a choice and it MUST be from the options I have.

Pizza? It's right there.
Salad? It took some work to assemble but it's there now.
Steak? It could be a bit more rare, but it's Bucca's so w/e.
Main Battle Tank? Shit, fresh out, I guess.

(no deviation),

No immediately real deviation. Still, many objects which represent logically consistent simulated deviations.

You still haven't discussed this or addressed this at all. You just kind of wave your hands at it and pretend that we can't access truths about futures that won't happen just because we don't choose to see the reified result.

therefore there are no alternative actions possible reified in that instance in time,

Correction mine. Re: your self-induced hoax

or any other given instance in time (no alternate actions, no deviation).

Re: self-induced hoax.

Yet again: ''Determinism entails that, in a situation in which a person makes a certain decision or performs a certain action, it is impossible unreified that he or she could have made any other decision or performed any other action. In other words, it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did.''

Unreified: merely that it didn't happen at that place and time, not that it could not happen at that place and time, a product of the accident of configuration rather than a matter of the consistent laws by which physics reifies.

When one removes the self-induced hoax, the conclusion melts away.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Choice entails the possibility of doing otherwise, that you could have taken this or that option instead of the one taken.

Indeed it does. Now that we agree as to what choice is, we need to establish what a "possibility" is.

It is the nature of a "possibility" that it may or may not happen. Whether it happens or not, it is still a possibility. For example, all of the items on the restaurant menu are real possibilities, whether they are ever chosen or not. The fact that we do not choose them does not make them "impossible", but only makes them "not chosen".

Yet that's not how determinism works, where no matter how many apparent options are being presented, there is only one possible decision (not choice), the determined action.

A possibility only needs to be "apparent". It never needs to be actualized. If you insist that a possibility must be actualized in order to be a real possibility, then you will end up ordering every item on the menu, since every item must be viewed as something that is possible for you to choose, before you even begin choosing.

It's just like addition. You can add any real numbers, but it is impossible to add letters. With choosing you can only order from the items on the menu. Ordering an automobile for dinner is impossible. But everything on the menu can be ordered.

That absence of alternatives turns decision making into entailment, not choice.

First, there is no absence of alternatives on the restaurant menu.
Second, if it was entailed that you would be in the restaurant reading the menu, then it is very likely that it is also entailed that you will be making a choice from that menu.
Third, there is no contradiction between entailment and choice, because it can obviously be entailed that you will be making a choice in the restaurant.

In other words, within a deterministic system information processing or 'decision making' is a process of entailment that does not involve choice, which requires the ability to have taken any one of a number of options.

The "ability" to do something does not require that you actually do it. If we wish to demonstrate the "ability" to order every item on the restaurant menu, and we have the cash to pay for it, we can simply order one of each thing on the menu. But that is not necessary, because everyone knows what an "ability" is. If you can order one thing from the menu, then you have the ability to order any of the other items as well.

So, we have the ability to order each and every item on the menu. Each is a real possibility, something that we are able to have for dinner if we choose to do so.

What we "can" order is not limited to what we "will" order.

What is "possible" to order is not limited to what we "actually" order.

Attempting to limit our possibilities to the single actuality creates logical paradoxes, because it violates the logical meaning of a possibility.

It is the same logical error as limiting what we "can" order to what we "will" order, which creates a paradox just like this:

Waiter: "What will you have for dinner tonight?"
Diner: "I don't know. What are my possibilities?"
Waiter: "Given determinism, there is only one possibility, only one thing that you can order".
Diner: "Oh...Okay. So what is the single thing that I can order?"
Waiter: "Given determinism, what you can order is limited to what you will order. So, if you tell me what you will order, then I can tell you what you can order."
Diner: "But how can I tell you what I will order if I don't know what I can order?!"

 

[DBT]

Please pay attention to what is being explained.

Please quit accusing your mirror.

You are the one skirting the central issue: Given that choice requires two or more realizable options, where any one of them can be selected at a given time, and that determinism does not permit alternate actions at any given time, which therefore negates choice as choice is defined.

Determinism, as you know, is the thesis that given the state of the world at any moment, there is only one way it can be at the next moment.

That is according to your own definition.

Yet you insist otherwise, thereby contradicting your own terms.

That is the problem.

Your protests do not address the issue.

 

[DBT]

Choice entails the possibility of doing otherwise, that you could have taken this or that option instead of the one taken.

Indeed it does. Now that we agree as to what choice is, we need to establish what a "possibility" is.

Yes, indeed, that is what choice means. Yet when it is related to determinism and how that is defined, it is clear that choice cannot exist within a deterministic system, where , given the state of the world at any given moment in time, there is only one way it can be at the next moment.

It is the nature of a "possibility" that it may or may not happen. Whether it happens or not, it is still a possibility. For example, all of the items on the restaurant menu are real possibilities, whether they are ever chosen or not. The fact that we do not choose them does not make them "impossible", but only makes them "not chosen".

Given determinism, possibility like choice is an illusion. Determinism does not permit what we perceive to be possibilities to be realized.

Possibilities that have no possibility of happening were never a possibility, existing only in the mind of the observer as a perception (as with choice).

That is according to how determinism is defined. And if determinism is true, how it works.

Yet that's not how determinism works, where no matter how many apparent options are being presented, there is only one possible decision (not choice), the determined action.

A possibility only needs to be "apparent". It never needs to be actualized. If you insist that a possibility must be actualized in order to be a real possibility, then you will end up ordering every item on the menu, since every item must be viewed as something that is possible for you to choose, before you even begin choosing.

Apparent is not enough. If it cannot happen, it is not a possibility but a perception formed in a brain that does not have the necessary information to see it for what it is: if not determined to happen, an impossibility rather than a possibility.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Yet when it is related to determinism and how that is defined, it is clear that choice cannot exist within a deterministic system, where , given the state of the world at any given moment in time, there is only one way it can be at the next moment.

Choosing is a series of events, proceeding moment to moment just like any other event. Each event within the choosing process is the inevitable result of prior events in the same process.

Choosing is a deterministic system. And it fits neatly within the causal chain of events. There is nothing about determinism that prevents choosing from happening.

Given determinism, possibility like choice is an illusion.

A possibility exists solely within the imagination. So, it may seem like an illusion to you. For example, we cannot drive a car across the possibility of a bridge. We can only drive across an actual bridge. We cannot build an actual bridge without first imagining a possible bridge. So, a possibility serves a practical and necessary function.

The "possibility" of a bridge is very different from the "illusion" of a bridge. While no one would attempt to drive across the possibility of a bridge, someone might very well attempt to drive across the illusion of a bridge. So, there is a clear distinction between a possibility and an illusion.

Determinism does not permit what we perceive to be possibilities to be realized.

Determinism insists that one possibility will in fact be realized. So, we cannot say that that it does not permit possibilities from being realized.

And every real possibility is by definition "realizable", whether it is ever realized or not. For example, all of the possibilities on the restaurant menu are in fact realizable, even though only one of them will be realized. The -able at the end of realizable converts it to a possibility.

Possibilities that have no possibility of happening were never a possibility, existing only in the mind of the observer as a perception (as with choice).

Nope. Possibilities are possibilities whether they happen or not. They do exist in the mind of the person, but that is the only place they need to exist in order to be real possibilities.

Any possibility that exists outside of the mind would immediately be renamed an "actuality". And that's the reason we have two different words, to keep us from becoming confused as to what exists in the world and what exists in our imagination.

The same is true with the words "can" and "will". Conflate them, and you get paradoxes and illusions.

Apparent is not enough. If it cannot happen, it is not a possibility but a perception formed in a brain that does not have the necessary information to see it for what it is: if not determined to happen, an impossibility rather than a possibility.

If it cannot happen then it is not a real possibility. But every real possibility is, by definition, something that can in fact happen, even if it never in fact happens. If you use the word "can" you are stepping out of the context of actualities and into the context of possibilities. And it is exactly the same when you add -able as the suffix of words like "realizable", you shift from the context of actuality to possibility.

Everything that actually happens is determined to happen. Everything that does not actually happen is determined not to happen.
But, unlike actualities, most of the things that are possible to happen are determined not to happen. And that is the normal expectation for possibilities.

And that is why no one ever attempts to drive across a possible bridge, because they have no expectation of an actual bridge. However, the person under the illusion that there is an actual bridge may very well attempt to drive across it. (For example, if a section of a bridge collapses, and we cannot see the missing piece, we may end up driving off the broken ledge).

 

[Jarhyn]

where any one of them can be selected at a given time, and that determinism does not permit alternate actions at any given time,

The mistake is again in assuming that "can be selected" means "multiple will be selected".

Let's forget for a moment that when someone says "what do you want of the menu" that I can in fact select multiples at the time: "give me the steak AND the salad please".

Of course I can't make two contradictory selections at the same time because that would actually violate the definition of choice: in a choice operation, some things MAY end up unselected and unrealized.

Without unrealized, but realizable options, there would, in fact, be no choice.

But look at what we see: several realizable foods (they are still sitting there at the food bar), one realized option on my plate.

The alternatives for selection do not require activation to be alternatives.

 

[DBT]

Yet when it is related to determinism and how that is defined, it is clear that choice cannot exist within a deterministic system, where , given the state of the world at any given moment in time, there is only one way it can be at the next moment.

Choosing is a series of events, proceeding moment to moment just like any other event. Each event within the choosing process is the inevitable result of prior events in the same process.

Determinism is a process of entailment. What you call 'choosing' - given there are no possible alternatives at any point in the process - is, given determinism - a process of entailment.

All events are entailed, not chosen.

We have the impression of free choice and will, that we could have taken any of a number of options when they are presented.

An impression of freedom to choose any option that is not representative of the reality of entailment, where only one action is possible: the determined action.

Choosing is a deterministic system. And it fits neatly within the causal chain of events. There is nothing about determinism that prevents choosing from happening.

There are no realizable alternatives. We perceive a set options where in reality the outcome is a forgone conclusion.

Forgone conclusions do not involve freedom of choice. Determinism, by definition, does not entail freedom of choice.

Determinism entails that, in a situation in which a person makes a certain decision or performs a certain action, it is impossible that he or she could have made any other decision or performed any other action. In other words, it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did.''

 

[DBT]

where any one of them can be selected at a given time, and that determinism does not permit alternate actions at any given time,

The mistake is again in assuming that "can be selected" means "multiple will be selected".

Must be selected is the reality of determinism. What is done must be done. It must be done because the nature of the system permits no deviation, randomness or alternate choice.

That is according to your definition of determinism.

Nor did I say - or suggest - that ''multiple will be selected''

 

[Jarhyn]

no possible alternatives

"No possible alternatives" is not the same as "no reified alternatives".

Obviously to everyone but those who pull this hoax upon themselves, there are possible alternatives.

Until you can describe what the shape of a possibility is in space and time according to the compatibilist, I hold out no hope of you figuring out why they exist even when the actions they describe are not reified.

If you wanted to prove to any of us that your position is right, you could START by learning how to speak our position in your own words well enough to actually identify those flaws that you infer "must" be there, beyond mere handwaving inferences, not as vague inferences but as immediate conflicts.

We have each pointed out why the ability to investigate futures is logically sound:

It is trivially true that some systems share the mathematical behavior of other systems, but for which the answers may be arrived more quickly, with error consistently less than "random chance".

This can allow us to predict the future and even violate those predictions on purpose, with our own immediate dictations.

I didn't have to choose to be myself for me myself to choose.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

All events are entailed, not chosen.

Whenever it is deterministically entailed that you will brush your teeth, brushing will happen.
Whenever it is deterministically entailed that you will add a column of numbers, addition will happen.
Whenever it is deterministically entailed that you will make a choice, choosing will happen.

The fact that brushing is entailed does not mean that brushing does not happen. In fact, it must happen.
The fact that addition is entailed does not mean that addition does not happen. In fact, it must happen.
The fact that choosing is entailed does not mean that choosing does not happen. In fact, it must happen.

The fact that an event is deterministically entailed means that it actually will happen, exactly as it does happen, without deviation.

Choosing will happen. And there will be two or more real options that we are really able to choose. The fact that we do not choose an option does not imply that we were ever unable to choose it, but only that we would not choose it.

There are no realizable alternatives. We perceive a set options where in reality the outcome is a forgone conclusion.

If we already knew the conclusion, then we would not begin choosing.
If we already knew the sum, then we would not begin adding the numbers.

Both choosing and addition are functions for which the conclusion (the choice or the sum) is not known. Someone else may know the conclusion, but we don't. Thus it is deterministically entailed that we must perform the choosing to get to the choice, just like we must perform the addition to get to the sum.

Forgone conclusions do not involve freedom of choice.

Hate to break the news to you, but this "forgone conclusion" is an illusion created by figurative thinking. To you, it may seems AS IF the conclusion is already reached. But clearly it is not. Neither the sum nor the choice are reached until after the addition or the choosing has happened.

Determinism entails that, in a situation in which a person makes a certain decision or performs a certain action, it is impossible that he or she could have made any other decision or performed any other action. In other words, it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did.''

Yes, yes. Britannica is making the same mistake that you are. It is conflating what "can" happen with what "will" happen. It is a common error, but still an error. It basically obliterates the context of possibilities. And since we need the context of possibilities for all human invention and progress, to damage it is self-destructive. We assume that the logic and language of possibilities evolved ages ago because it gave our species a survival advantage. So, try not to break it. After all, our lives depend upon it.

 

[DBT]

no possible alternatives

"No possible alternatives" is not the same as "no reified alternatives".

Obviously to everyone but those who pull this hoax upon themselves, there are possible alternatives.

How many times must it be explained that 'no possible alternatives' means that determined actions are set in each and every given instance in time? That in any given instance in time, there are no alternative actions.

Which, once again, doesn't mean that all the options that cannot happen in one instance, can happen at another another if so determined.

The point being, that whatever could not happen in one moment - not being determined to happen - it can happen at another point in time, but only if determined.

Can you not grasp the implications of 'no randomness' and 'no deviation' hence no alternate actions, hence nothing else can be done in any given instance in time? which is entailed by your own definition?

Read carefully and think about it:

''Determinism entails that, in a situation in which a person makes a certain decision or performs a certain action, it is impossible that he or she could have made any other decision or performed any other action. In other words, it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did.''

 

[DBT]

All events are entailed, not chosen.

Whenever it is deterministically entailed that you will brush your teeth, brushing will happen.
Whenever it is deterministically entailed that you will add a column of numbers, addition will happen.
Whenever it is deterministically entailed that you will make a choice, choosing will happen.

The fact that brushing is entailed does not mean that brushing does not happen. In fact, it must happen.
The fact that addition is entailed does not mean that addition does not happen. In fact, it must happen.
The fact that choosing is entailed does not mean that choosing does not happen. In fact, it must happen.

The fact that an event is deterministically entailed means that it actually will happen, exactly as it does happen, without deviation.

Choosing will happen. And there will be two or more real options that we are really able to choose. The fact that we do not choose an option does not imply that we were ever unable to choose it, but only that we would not choose it.

The logic goes astray when you label what is a process of determinism 'choosing.' Without alternatives, there is no choice. Whatever happens must necessarily happen. According to your own descriptions, there is no possibility of doing otherwise.

If it is determined that you brush your teeth at 6am, you must necessarily brush your teeth at 6am, and you cannot choose a different action at 6am.

Nothing else can happen.

Determinism fixes all action.

Fixed actions are not a matter of choice because there are no alternatives.

''Determinism entails that, in a situation in which a person makes a certain decision or performs a certain action, it is impossible that he or she could have made any other decision or performed any other action. In other words, it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did.''

There are no realizable alternatives. We perceive a set options where in reality the outcome is a forgone conclusion.

If we already knew the conclusion, then we would not begin choosing.
If we already knew the sum, then we would not begin adding the numbers.

The process began long before it comes to you knowing the sum. You inevitably come to the sum as the system evolves. It is not possible to come to the sum/answer without the prior states of the system that inexorably brings you to the point where you need to calculate and produce an answer for whatever problem you need to solve.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

The fact that an event is deterministically entailed means that it actually will happen, exactly as it does happen, without deviation.
Choosing will happen. And there will be two or more real options that we are really able to choose. The fact that we do not choose an option does not imply that we were ever unable to choose it, but only that we would not choose it.

The logic goes astray when you label what is a process of determinism 'choosing.'

If we are to distinguish one deterministic process from another, we must give them different names. Addition, subtraction, and choosing are three distinct deterministic processes. Each of them executes according to their own unique logic. If we fail to label them correctly, then we may find ourselves performing subtraction when we need to perform addition, or performing choosing when we need to perform subtraction.

So, labeling deterministic processes is essential to knowing what we're doing.

Without alternatives, there is no choice.

Correct, and there will always be at least two alternatives. In fact, our encountering multiple alternatives causally necessitates the choosing process! So, we can always count on there being alternatives to choose from.

Whatever happens must necessarily happen.

Always.

According to your own descriptions, there is no possibility of doing otherwise.

Not according to my descriptions. You must be talking about that other guy, DBT.

According to my description, determinism guarantees that there will be multiple possibilities whenever a choosing process begins, just like determinism guarantees that there will be multiple numbers whenever an adding process begins. Both are part of the inevitable unfolding of events, that will proceed without deviation.

If it is determined that you brush your teeth at 6am, you must necessarily brush your teeth at 6am, and you cannot choose a different action at 6am. Nothing else can happen.

You are confusing what "can" happen with what "will" happen, and ending up with false statements.
The true statement reads like this:

"If it is determined that you brush your teeth at 6am, you must necessarily brush your teeth at 6am, and you will not choose a different action at 6am. Nothing else will happen."

Getting this right takes some practice.

Determinism fixes all action.

Well, technically, determinism does not actually do or fix anything. All of the doing and the fixing is being done by the actual objects that make up the physical universe and the actual forces between them. It is the natural interactions between these objects that bring about all events.

I make this point to remind us all that we happen to be one of those objects. And, being members of an intelligent species, we go about in the world causing events to happen, and doing so for our own goals and reasons. Hard determinists often attempt to hide this detail in the more general notion of "determinism".

Fixed actions are not a matter of choice because there are no alternatives.

When it is fixed that choosing will happen, then it necessarily will happen, and it will also be fixed that two or more alternatives will show up before the choosing begins.

There is no alternative to there being multiple alternatives, because that is exactly how the events were always going to unfold. Just so, and in no other way.

''Determinism entails that, in a situation in which a person makes a certain decision or performs a certain action, it is impossible that he or she could have made any other decision or performed any other action. In other words, it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did.''

Same false statements created by confusing what "can" happen with what "will" happen.
The true statements are these:
"Determinism entails that, in a situation in which a person makes a certain decision or performs a certain action, it is impossible that he or she would have made any other decision or performed any other action. In other words, it is never true that people would have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did."

Whenever a decision must be made, there will be at least two things that we can choose, even though there is only one thing that we will choose. Because there are always two things that we can choose, at the end of our choosing there will always be the single thing that we will choose and at least one other thing that we could have chosen, but didn't.

Thus, as commonly understood, "I chose the Salad, even though I could have chosen the Steak", is true in both its parts.

The process began long before it comes to you knowing the sum. You inevitably come to the sum as the system evolves. It is not possible to come to the sum/answer without the prior states of the system that inexorably brings you to the point where you need to calculate and produce an answer for whatever problem you need to solve.

And with choosing, the prior states of the system inexorably bring me to the point where I have two alternatives, and I must make a choice before I can continue. And I will make the inevitable choice according to my own goals and reasons as they inexorably are at that point in time. Because that is who I inexorably will be. And, if it is inexorably fixed that I will be free of coercion and undue influence, then that will inexorably be a choice of my own free will.

Determinism, causal necessity/inevitability, the inexorability of it all, changes nothing.