Demystifying Determinism

[Jarhyn]

The fact they are real objects which are being examined for selection makes them "options".

The fact that these objects instantiate representations of tested futures on the basis of "if this is the selection, this future reifies" makes them "wills"

The fact that the math as applied is logically coherent IF selected makes it "provisionally free".

The fact that it is "provisionally free and selected" makes it "actually free".

It's not a hard math to operate, and allows one to derive responsibility of the thing calculating such wills as to the reification of a predicted outcome.

These are constructed through representations, real objects, being operated on together to solve for the positions and states of real external objects within some boundary condition, on account of the systems sharing the same math.

Simply put, our neurons operate less Rube Goldberg than all that mess of crashing particles, such that we can ascertain the position of the ball from the long-ago existence of a few photons.

 

[DBT]

The fact they are real objects which are being examined for selection makes them "options".

This still misses the point.

That they are 'real objects' or that they are 'being examined' has no bearing on what happens as the deterministic system evolves without randomness or deviation.

Just that you'd say such a thing shows that you still don't understand the implications of determinism as you yourself define it.

I could explain it again, quote your definition and point out the terms, but I suspect it's a waste of time and effort.

Just a hint: they are options for different people in a given instance in time, someone at some time, only if that has been determined to happen in that given instance in time....where it is not an option, but a necessity.

Wherever an 'option' can be realized, it must be realized. It cannot be avoided. Being a necessity, it's not a matter of free choice, it has to happen.

 

[DBT]

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.

There are never two or more realizable alternatives in any given instance. As defined, no deviation and no alternate actions does not permit the possibility of choosing an alternative to what has been determined to happen.

The alternatives or options you refer to are realizable for other people/different states/ different proclivities, if it is determined.

Given a list of meals on menu, all of the items on the menu can be ordered by any number of customers, each according to what has been determined in each instance in time.

And in that instance in time, there is only one possible action, the determined item is ordered.


Determinism: given the state of the world at any moment in time, there is only one way it can be at the next moment.

''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.''

 

[Jarhyn]

This still misses the point.

No, it doesn't.

That they are real objects that are being examined for selection makes them satisfy the definition "possibility", "'real options' available but not selected".

Having many of those and selecting one meets the definition of a choice

Full stop.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

There are never two or more realizable alternatives in any given instance.

An alternative is realizable if we are able to carry it out if we choose to do so. The fact that we do not choose to do so does not make it unrealizable, but only unchosen. A realizable alternative is a "possibility". It need not be an actuality. It need not ever happen to qualify as something that "can" happen.

For example, the Steak on the menu was a realizable alternative. So was every other item on the menu. The fact that we chose the Salad instead of the Steak does not alter the fact that the Steak was realizable.

As defined, no deviation and no alternate actions does not permit the possibility of choosing an alternative to what has been determined to happen.

As defined, there is no deviation and no alternate that permits you to get around choosing.
As defined, there is no deviation and no alternate that permits you to get around the multiple alternatives that you will encounter.

The alternatives or options you refer to are realizable for other people/different states/ different proclivities, if it is determined. Given a list of meals on menu, all of the items on the menu can be ordered by any number of customers, each according to what has been determined in each instance in time.

I suggest you select any one of those customers, and then explain to them why they should consider any of the options on the menu to be impossible to realize.

And in that instance in time, there is only one possible action, the determined item is ordered.

At all points in time, before, during, and after the choosing, every item on the menu can be ordered. This is not changed by the fact that only one of them will be ordered.

In fact, it is logically impossible for anyone to get to the single thing that they "will" order without first dealing with the multiple things that they "can" order.

 

[Jarhyn]

"prove you 'can'"..
*Goes out and does.*
"No, prove the existence of 'can but won't'"
*"I can buy a taco", goes out to a taco truck, says "un lengua por favor", hands them three crisp one dollar bills, and then when the taco truck person gives me the taco I say "I'm sorry I don't want that give me my money back", and hand back the taco that they gave me and they say "chingala, gringo!" then throws 2 crumpled dollars back over the counter at me loaded inside with 50 cents each in quarters.*

Clearly I could, and the only thing that stopped it was me at the last minute constraining my "can" with "won't". The machine exercised itself on the will, it was a logical possibility, but also validating that possibility with reification just short of consummation, so as validating the will and the power to exercise it. Clearly the only thing constraining me at that point was my own decision to abort the course of action. They didn't tell me I wouldn't, I told me I wouldn't with no constraint but the processes of my own decision making.

 

[DBT]

This still misses the point.

No, it doesn't.

Clearly it does. The point is that with all events and actions being set by prior states of the system, which is not chosen, there are no possible alternative actions at any point of the evolution of the system.

That different people can do different things at the same time, 'options,' is irrelevant because each and every person is in the same boat with their own determined option.

Nobody is able to choose an option that was not determined.

That is determinism.

That is how you define it.

So, yes, that is the point.

That they are real objects that are being examined for selection makes them satisfy the definition "possibility", "'real options' available but not selected".

Having many of those and selecting one meets the definition of a choice

Full stop.

That options are examined has no bearing on the action that is necessarily taken. The act of examination is equally determined as the action that must necessarily follow. There are no exceptions.

You attempt to squeeze an exemption into a process that has no room for one. That error is due to a poor understanding of determinism.

 

[Jarhyn]

all events and actions being set by prior states of the system, which is not chosen

See there's your problem. You declare universally events and actions of prior states aren't chosen.

I've pointed out many aspects of prior states of the system that WERE observably chosen after the definition I offered: a prior state of the system was me choosing to say "try to punch me in the face for a while", after which I, as I had chosen to, was made to either dodge or get punched in the face. Whether I dodged was not chosen, but that they would start was.

Clearly a prior state of the system to now was chosen.

I didn't have to choose to be born for me, as myself, to choose to continue to live.

Your inability (or perhaps disinterest) in seeing the things which we choose does not make those things go away.

 

[DBT]

There are never two or more realizable alternatives in any given instance.

An alternative is realizable if we are able to carry it out if we choose to do so.

Given the terms and conditions of a deterministic system, it can't be possible to choose or carry out an alternate action. What you say contradicts the terms and conditions of your definition.

The fact that we do not choose to do so does not make it unrealizable, but only unchosen. A realizable alternative is a "possibility". It need not be an actuality. It need not ever happen to qualify as something that "can" happen.

We do not choose alternate actions because alternate actions are not possible in determinism.

They cannot happen. It's not a matter of 'we do not choose' because it was never a matter of choice in the first place.

A deterministic system evolves or develops without deviation, every thought and action is fixed by the prior states of the system.

Whatever you feel and think, you must necessarily feel and think, and whatever you do, you must necessarily do.

No deviations.

No alternatives.

No doing otherwise.

No 'we did not,' but we might have.

Fixed actions, set by antecedents.

 

[Jarhyn]

it can't be possible to choose or carry out an alternate action

He never asked for it to be possible after choosing to choose or carry out the alternate action. In fact in making the choice, he accepted absolutely to be so unable. That's what it is to make a choice: to be the causal element which narrows that field from many to 1.

All he asked for was to be able to carry out whichever action he chose.

Despite this you are wrong.

Back at the Taco Truck, I did choose an action, and then chose an alternate action after my initial ostensible choice. I made a choice: I ordered and got the taco, then I chose the alternative and got my money back, and even some rather pretty sounding words.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Given the terms and conditions of a deterministic system, it can't be possible to choose or carry out an alternate action.

The conditions of a deterministic system are simply that every event is reliably caused by prior events, such that everything that happens is always causally necessary from any prior point in time.

For example, determinism logically implies that it was causally necessary that we would be reading the menu, considering the many things that we could order for dinner, and choosing from them what we would order.

We do not choose alternate actions because alternate actions are not possible in determinism.

We've all seen the menu. And we've explained the difference between a possibility and an actuality, the difference between the many things that we "can" do versus the single thing that we "will" do.

They cannot happen.

Unchosen alternatives "will not" happen. But that does not mean that they "cannot happen" or "could not have happened". To conflate what "can" happen with what "will" happen is a logical error that creates paradoxes. And it only happens because we're thinking figuratively. So, it's best to stop doing that, even if it has become habitual. Every figurative statement is literally false. So, when figurative statements are taken literally, we end up with falsehoods.

We chose the Salad, even though we could have chosen the Steak.
"We chose the Salad" is a true statement.
"We could have chosen the Steak" is also a true statement.

A deterministic system evolves or develops without deviation, every thought and action is fixed by the prior states of the system.

And that is exactly what happened in the restaurant. The menu of possibilities was inevitable. The choosing from the menu was inevitable. And it was inevitable that we would all be there, each of us free to choose for ourselves what we would order. Free of what? Free of coercion and undue influence. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Whatever you feel and think, you must necessarily feel and think, and whatever you do, you must necessarily do.

And that should not bother anyone. What it is causally necessary that we would do, we were going to do anyway, of our own free will.

No deviations. No alternatives. No doing otherwise.

Exactly. We could have done otherwise, but we would not do otherwise. Why, it's almost AS IF we could not have done otherwise! But, of course, we could have done otherwise. We just didn't do otherwise, nor would we have done otherwise under those circumstances.

No 'we did not,' but we might have.

Hmm. Is that right? No, it's not. We did not order the Steak, but, of course, we might have ordered it under different circumstances.

Fixed actions, set by antecedents.

Yes. Everything happened as it was causally necessary and inevitably would happen. The menu of possibilities, the choosing, the dinner order, and even the bill for our dinner that we responsibly paid on the way out.

Fixed, and set by antecedents, does not actually change anything that happened. It happened just so, as it always would have happened, with us choosing for ourselves (of our own free will) what we would order for dinner from a menu of alternate possibilities. That's what determinism logically implies.

 

[DBT]

it can't be possible to choose or carry out an alternate action

He never asked for it to be possible after choosing to choose or carry out the alternate action. In fact in making the choice, he accepted absolutely to be so unable. That's what it is to make a choice: to be the causal element which narrows that field from many to 1.

For heavens sake, before or after has no relevance. All actions at all times are fixed by prior states of the system.

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.''

All he asked for was to be able to carry out whichever action he chose.

Despite this you are wrong.

Back at the Taco Truck, I did choose an action, and then chose an alternate action after my initial ostensible choice. I made a choice: I ordered and got the taco, then I chose the alternative and got my money back, and even some rather pretty sounding words.

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

 

[DBT]

Given the terms and conditions of a deterministic system, it can't be possible to choose or carry out an alternate action.

The conditions of a deterministic system are simply that every event is reliably caused by prior events, such that everything that happens is always causally necessary from any prior point in time.

Not merely reliably, but inexorably.

Fixed, set, no negotiating or choosing otherwise.

For example, determinism logically implies that it was causally necessary that we would be reading the menu, considering the many things that we could order for dinner, and choosing from them what we would order.

If determined, not only could order, but must order. Order not just any item, only the determined item, let's say Caesar Salad, with no possible alternatives in that moment of fulfilling the determined item: Caesar Salad.

We do not choose alternate actions because alternate actions are not possible in determinism.

We've all seen the menu. And we've explained the difference between a possibility and an actuality, the difference between the many things that we "can" do versus the single thing that we "will" do.

If not determined, there is no 'can do otherwise.'


''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.''

They cannot happen.

Unchosen alternatives "will not" happen. But that does not mean that they "cannot happen" or "could not have happened". To conflate what "can" happen with what "will" happen is a logical error that creates paradoxes. And it only happens because we're thinking figuratively. So, it's best to stop doing that, even if it has become habitual. Every figurative statement is literally false. So, when figurative statements are taken literally, we end up with falsehoods.

We chose the Salad, even though we could have chosen the Steak.
"We chose the Salad" is a true statement.
"We could have chosen the Steak" is also a true statement.

If Salad is determined, Steak was never on the cards despite being on the menu. In the instance of fulfilling the inevitable action of ordering Salad, Steak is for someone else, it is not your realizable option in that place and moment in time.

A deterministic system evolves or develops without deviation, every thought and action is fixed by the prior states of the system.

And that is exactly what happened in the restaurant. The menu of possibilities was inevitable. The choosing from the menu was inevitable. And it was inevitable that we would all be there, each of us free to choose for ourselves what we would order. Free of what? Free of coercion and undue influence. Nothing more. Nothing less.

All the items on the menu are not only possibilities for other customers, they are - only if determined - inevitabilities for other customers.

All of the items on the menu not only may be ordered by the customers, but if determined, must be ordered.

That is determinism.

''Determinism is an example: it alleges that all the seeming irregularities and spontaneities in the world are haunted by an omnipresent system of strict necessitation.'' - J. W. N. Watkins, "Between Analytic and Empirical," Philosophy, vol. 32, no. 121, p. 114:

 

[Jarhyn]

it can't be possible to choose or carry out an alternate action

He never asked for it to be possible after choosing to choose or carry out the alternate action. In fact in making the choice, he accepted absolutely to be so unable. That's what it is to make a choice: to be the causal element which narrows that field from many to 1.

For heavens sake, before or after has no relevance.

The arrow of time absolutely has relevance here.

All actions at all times are fixed by prior states of the system.

Yes, and some of those actions conform to the compatibilist definition of "making a choice", which fixes future actions.

Determinism entails that, in a situation in which a person makes a certain decision

IOW: "when a person makes a choice"

or performs a certain action, it is impossible that he or she could WOULD have made any other decision or performed any other action.

FIFY.

The fact of making a decision in fact demands that there  was something that was decided against. That means that the decision, IF it had been decided the other way, would have been performed.

The IF and WOULD together form a could.

It just happens that the condition for "if" was not met: could but didn't.

In other words, it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did.''

All he asked for was to be able to carry out whichever action he chose.

Despite this you are wrong.

Back at the Taco Truck, I did choose an action, and then chose an alternate action after my initial ostensible choice. I made a choice: I ordered and got the taco, then I chose the alternative and got my money back, and even some rather pretty sounding words.

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

Randomness? If you wage it is there, highlight it in red.

I see no red highlighting by DBT so I can only imagine that you didn't actually find any. You won't either because it is not there.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Not merely reliably, but inexorably. Fixed, set, no negotiating or choosing otherwise.

It doesn't matter which adjective you use. The result is still the same.

Determinism logically implies that the following events would happen exactly as they did happen (inexorably, fixed, set): we would be reading the menu, we would consider the many things that we could order for dinner, and we would be choosing, from among the many things that we could order, exactly what we would order.

If determined, not only could order, but must order.

If we conflate what we "could" order with what we "would" order, we create a paradox. So, let's stop doing that.

We have the menu of multiple things that we "can" order. From it, we will choose the single thing that we "will" order. That's many "can's" and a single "will". After deciding what we "will" order, we will still have the many "can's" that we "could have" ordered instead.

 

[DBT]

it can't be possible to choose or carry out an alternate action

He never asked for it to be possible after choosing to choose or carry out the alternate action. In fact in making the choice, he accepted absolutely to be so unable. That's what it is to make a choice: to be the causal element which narrows that field from many to 1.

For heavens sake, before or after has no relevance.

The arrow of time absolutely has relevance here.

I wasn't talking about the arrow of time.

Does ''a deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system'' - Jarhyn - ring any bells?

All actions at all times are fixed by prior states of the system.

Yes, and some of those actions conform to the compatibilist definition of "making a choice", which fixes future actions.

Applying a label doesn't prove the proposition.

Determinism entails that, in a situation in which a person makes a certain decision

IOW: "when a person makes a choice"

Wow, that's excluding a whole of elements in a process where there is ''no randomness involved in the development of future states of the system'' - Jarhyn

FIFY.

Before you attempt to fix, you should understand what was said. You have yet to grasp the nature and implications of determinism.

The fact of making a decision in fact demands that there  was something that was decided against. That means that the decision, IF it had been decided the other way, would have been performed.
.

That's an example of not understanding the nature and implications of determinism.

 

[DBT]

Not merely reliably, but inexorably. Fixed, set, no negotiating or choosing otherwise.

It doesn't matter which adjective you use. The result is still the same.

Determinism logically implies that the following events would happen exactly as they did happen (inexorably, fixed, set): we would be reading the menu, we would consider the many things that we could order for dinner, and we would be choosing, from among the many things that we could order, exactly what we would order.

The point of contention is 'choosing'

As nothing else can be chosen, the determined action fixed by antecedents, decision making is a process of entailment, not choice.

If determined, not only could order, but must order.

If we conflate what we "could" order with what we "would" order, we create a paradox. So, let's stop doing that.

We have the menu of multiple things that we "can" order. From it, we will choose the single thing that we "will" order. That's many "can's" and a single "will". After deciding what we "will" order, we will still have the many "can's" that we "could have" ordered instead.

Determinism doesn't deal with could or would.

There is only must.

Everything that happens, must happen as determined, which is not a matter of choice because there are no alternatives in determinism.

 

[Jarhyn]

I wasn't talking about the arrow of time.

In other words you don't know what you were talking about because you WERE talking about the arrow of time. Before and after absolutely has relevance here, and that very much is the arrow of time.

Does ''a deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system'' - Jarhyn - ring any bells?

Does this ring a bell:

Randomness? If you wage it is there, highlight it in red.

Applying a label doesn't prove the proposition.

It is not applying a label, it is recognizing natural conformance to a definition.

It's sad that you don't understand the difference.

You believe that the universe conforms to the definition of "a Deterministic system". It is equally what you here call "applying a label", but applying the label of "applying a label" does not prove the proposition that I am merely "applying a label".

Oh, the irony.

Wow, that's excluding a whole of elements in a process where there is ''no randomness involved in the development of future states of the system'' - Jarhyn

Randomness? If you wage it is there, highlight it in red.

Before you attempt to fix, you should understand what was said. You have yet to grasp the nature and implications of determinism

No, I grasp the implications just fine. I just don't buy your bullshit arguments. If you wish to invoke "nature and implications of determinism" ie, no randomness, no do-overs, then find them, highlight it in red.

That's an example of not understanding the nature and implications of determinism

if you had any argument here you would be able to actually unpack and indicate it rather than merely asserting I am wrong and waving your hands. I give you the courtesy of doing as much.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

The point of contention is 'choosing'

Indeed. But there is another point of contention, the conflation of "can" with "will", as seen here:

As nothing else can be chosen, ...

Something else on the menu can be chosen and could have been chosen, despite that fact that it will not be chosen and would not have been chosen.

The menu is a list of the items that can be chosen now. And when we speak of that menu later, we refer to the listed items as things that could have been chosen.

When we speak of what is determined (your metaphor) to happen, we are referring to what certainly will happen. And when we speak of this later we refer to the only thing that inevitably would have happened.

When speaking of determinism, it is important to keep these two notions separate: what "could have" happened versus what "would have" happened. Multiple things "could have" happened, but only one thing "would have" happened.

... the determined action fixed by antecedents, decision making is a process of entailment, not choice.

Decision making IS choosing. And decision making, given determinism, is entailed to happen whenever we sit in a restaurant reading the menu that lists the many things that we can order. Choosing is the operation that reduces the many possibilities to a single dinner order. Choosing actually happens in physical reality.

Determinism doesn't deal with could or would.

Determinism is about what certainly will happen, so determinism definitely deals with would.

But it would be fair to say that determinism does not deal with what can or could happen. So, when speaking of determinism, we should avoid drawing any implications as to possibilities, things that can happen or could happen or could have happened. For example, determinism has "no business" making the claim that we "could not have done otherwise". It can only claim that we "would not have done otherwise".

There is only must.

One of the things we must do in the restaurant is to choose for ourselves, from the many possibilities on the menu, what we will order for dinner. And this choosing involves the many things that we could order and results in the single thing that we would order.

Everything that happens, must happen as determined, which is not a matter of choice because there are no alternatives in determinism.

Determinism doesn't actually change anything. We will go into the restaurant, open the menu, consider the many possibilities, and select the single thing that we will order for dinner. And, we will responsibly pay the cashier on our way out, because we ordered that dinner of our own free will.

 

[Jarhyn]

@Marvin Edwards I would caution you in your separation of "would" from could and can.

Would is still in the predictive space, and reliant on hidden contingents: "this would result in that" is the more certain form of "this could happen make that happen"