Demystifying Determinism

[DBT]

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.

I have an argument. It's called incompatibilism. The reasons why the notion of free will is incompatible with determinism have been described and repeated for over a year now....yet you still fail to grasp the basics, ie, the implications of determinism and what that means for the idea of free will.


And why even mention randomness? It's irrelevant to this discussion. You should know that compatibilism is the argument that free will is compatible with determinism, and that incompatibilism is the argument that free will is not compatible with determinism. Yet it appears not. It's like Groundhog Day on this forum.

 

[DBT]

The point of contention is 'choosing'

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

''Must'' is the key here. Entailment/determinism means that whatever happens must necessarily happen without deviation, which of course meanss no alternatives in any given moment in time as the system develops from prior to present and future states.

So what can be done and is done, must be done...and because it must be done, it will be done.

No alternatives, no choice involved.

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.

No deviation, no alternative in any given instance equates to could not have been otherwise. Which equates to cannot have chosen otherwise.

One outcome in any given instance.

That's determinism.

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.

What will happen is what must happen. What 'can' happen are things that do happen at various times: if and when determined.

That is the point, that whatever can happen only happens when the system determines that it happens.

If an event has not been determined to happen, it will not happen because alternate actions cannot happen within a deterministic system.

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.

In relation to the system, the world at large, how its objects and events interrelate, we see and speak from a limited perspective and understanding.

 

[Jarhyn]

I have an argument. It's called incompatibilism.

No, you have an assertion. When you provide an argument you can be sure I'll pay attention and care.

The reasons why the notion of free will is incompatible with determinism have been described and repeated for over a year now....

No, they haven't. I gave you numerous opportunities to actually produce this claimed incompatibility and you have not managed yet to highlight it in red.

yet you still fail to grasp the basics, ie, the implications of determinism and what that means for the idea of free will

No, I fail to accept unargued assertions based on a modal fallacy.

We have explained where the specific fault of your language exists, both Marvin and I, which results in you falling into this self-induced hoax.

And why even mention randomness? It's irrelevant to this discussion.

I don't know... Maybe because you repeatedly have attempted to use it as some sort of argument against what I have said without then highlighting it in red:

''a deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system''

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

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

the implications of 'no randomness' and 'no deviation'

It must be done because the nature of the system permits no deviation, randomness

The fact is, if you wish to cease being asked to find the randomness (or deviation), then quit claiming it is the non-existence of true randomness and deviation that makes your case.

If you had a case on that basis you could find where I would have to invoke a "do-over" or "madness" in my post describing general conformation to compatibilist choice.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

''Must'' is the key here. Entailment/determinism means that whatever happens must necessarily happen without deviation, which of course means no alternatives in any given moment in time as the system develops from prior to present and future states.

There is no alternative (causal necessity) to the menu having alternatives (logical necessity). That is how things are. And it is also how they "must" be.

There was a menu, which, by logical necessity, contains a list of items that we "can" order. And that menu and its logical implications were causally necessary from any prior point in time.

So what can be done and is done, must be done...and because it must be done, it will be done.

No! Most of the things that "can" be done will never be done. All of the items on the restaurant menu "can" be ordered. And each customer is "able" to order any (or all) of the items on the menu. But each customer "will" only order one or two of them (appetizer, main course, dessert).

That is the key distinction between what "can" happen and what "will" happen. Multiple things "can" be chosen, but only one thing "will" be chosen.

When recalling this restaurant experience in the future, we may speak of the single thing that we "would" order that night, and also the many things that we "could have" ordered instead.

When determinists claim that we "could not have done otherwise", they are mistaken.
When determinists claim that we "would not have done otherwise", they are correct.

In relation to the system, the world at large, how its objects and events interrelate, we see and speak from a limited perspective and understanding.

Indeed. And we often resort to metaphors and other figures of speech to communicate. But we need to keep in mind that every figurative statement is literally false, and must not be taken to be literally true, or else we will just compound our errors.

 

[DBT]

I have an argument. It's called incompatibilism.

No, you have an assertion. When you provide an argument you can be sure I'll pay attention and care.

The reasons why the notion of free will is incompatible with determinism have been described and repeated for over a year now....

No, they haven't. I gave you numerous opportunities to actually produce this claimed incompatibility and you have not managed yet to highlight it in red.

yet you still fail to grasp the basics, ie, the implications of determinism and what that means for the idea of free will

No, I fail to accept unargued assertions based on a modal fallacy.

We have explained where the specific fault of your language exists, both Marvin and I, which results in you falling into this self-induced hoax.

And why even mention randomness? It's irrelevant to this discussion.

I don't know... Maybe because you repeatedly have attempted to use it as some sort of argument against what I have said without then highlighting it in red:

''a deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system''

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

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

the implications of 'no randomness' and 'no deviation'

It must be done because the nature of the system permits no deviation, randomness

The fact is, if you wish to cease being asked to find the randomness (or deviation), then quit claiming it is the non-existence of true randomness and deviation that makes your case.

If you had a case on that basis you could find where I would have to invoke a "do-over" or "madness" in my post describing general conformation to compatibilist choice.

The fact is that you are either unable to grasp the implications of determinism as you yourself define it, or you are unwilling because it falsifies your cherished notion of free will.

It's not hard, will itself being fixed by prior states of the system as it evolves without deviation, has no freedom. Will makes no difference to outcomes. The evolution of the system, its objects and events, however complex, just evolve deterministically, where whatever happens must necessarily happen without alternatives or deviation.....just as you, yourself define it.

 

[DBT]

''Must'' is the key here. Entailment/determinism means that whatever happens must necessarily happen without deviation, which of course means no alternatives in any given moment in time as the system develops from prior to present and future states.

There is no alternative (causal necessity) to the menu having alternatives (logical necessity). That is how things are. And it is also how they "must" be.

There was a menu, which, by logical necessity, contains a list of items that we "can" order. And that menu and its logical implications were causally necessary from any prior point in time.

We may think we can order something else. Yet through a process of necessitation, none of the alternative items are a possibility in the instance of fulfilling the determined decision....a decision that is necessitated rather than freely chosen.

Free choice cannot exist within a deterministic system.

So what can be done and is done, must be done...and because it must be done, it will be done.

No! Most of the things that "can" be done will never be done. All of the items on the restaurant menu "can" be ordered. And each customer is "able" to order any (or all) of the items on the menu. But each customer "will" only order one or two of them (appetizer, main course, dessert).

It's a matter of time and fixed events. Things that can be done, generally speaking, cannot happen if not determined to happen in a given set of circumstances.

That's the point. It doesn't matter what 'can' be done when whatever happens, being necessitated, must happen, and in that moment in time, nothing else can happen in its stead.

That is the key distinction between what "can" happen and what "will" happen. Multiple things "can" be chosen, but only one thing "will" be chosen.

Nope. 'No deviation' negates all possibility of alternative actions

''All of these events, including my choices, were causally necessary from any prior point in time. And they all proceeded without deviation from the Big Bang to this moment.'' - Marvin Edwards.

When recalling this restaurant experience in the future, we may speak of the single thing that we "would" order that night, and also the many things that we "could have" ordered instead.

When determinists claim that we "could not have done otherwise", they are mistaken.
When determinists claim that we "would not have done otherwise", they are correct.

A moot point.

Determinism doesn't permit alternatives.

If alternate actions are not permitted, how can they happen? As there is no possibility of choosing or doing otherwise, saying we 'would not have done otherwise' is irrelevant.

In relation to the system, the world at large, how its objects and events interrelate, we see and speak from a limited perspective and understanding.

Indeed. And we often resort to metaphors and other figures of speech to communicate. But we need to keep in mind that every figurative statement is literally false, and must not be taken to be literally true, or else we will just compound our errors.

'No alternate action or choice' is not figurative: that is how determinism works and how it is defined.

'Without deviation' is not figurative: that is how determinism works and how it is defined.

No alternate action or choice as the system evolves without deviation effectively rather than figuratively eliminates freedom of will.

 

[Jarhyn]

The fact is that you are either unable to grasp the implications of determinism as you yourself define it, or you are unwilling because it falsifies your cherished notion of free will

Apparently you're the one that fails to grasp it.

You keep bringing up that the "implications of determinism" matter in some situation but fail to point to the things which those implications rule out on account of being required to the outcome.

YOU are the one who fails to understand those implications, as revealed by your failure to highlight in red the locations where those implications are stepped on in my logic.

Will makes no difference to outcomes

So that everyone else here understands exactly how asinine this claim is, it poses that if the customer just is in the restaurant, the waiter brings them their order without speaking anything or that if I say in my head "I will order the salad" I will still order the steak no matter what I do.

This is silliness.

Maybe this is how it works for DBT, but that would merely imply that DBT has no self-control or self-discipline.

I choose a more charitable interpretation and would instead pose that DBT has it, they just insist on never using it.

Either of these, however, indicates a pathology, not normal function.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

We may think we can order something else.

We know for certain that we "can" order anything on the menu. That's one of the benefits of "can". There are multiple things that we "can" order, even though there is only one thing that we "will" order.

"Will" I order the juicy Steak or "will" I order the Salad? That is something that I cannot know yet. I can make no assertions as to what I "will" order until after I make my choice.

But before I make my choice I can know for certain that I "can" order the Steak. And I can know for certain that I "can" order the Salad. In fact, I know for certain that I "can" order everything listed on the menu.

Having two or more items that I "can" select is logically required by the choosing operation. Just like having two or more numbers that I can add together is logically required by the addition operation.

Yet through a process of necessitation, none of the alternative items are a possibility in the instance of fulfilling the determined decision...

The "process of necessitation" is not a magic trick that makes possibilities disappear. Possibilities are logical tokens within the decision making process. Decision making does not work without them. In fact, decision making logically insists upon having at least two real possibilities before it will even begin.

Because possibilities are logically necessary, we must presume that they are also causally necessary events, because here they are, in black and white, on the restaurant menu. There is no deciding what we will order for dinner without them. And without the deciding what we will order there will be no dinner.

So, the "deciding" and the "possibilities" must be seen as part of deterministic causal necessity. Otherwise, the chain of causation breaks.

...a decision that is necessitated rather than freely chosen. Free choice cannot exist within a deterministic system.

There is no such thing as "freedom from causal necessity". We never need such a freedom because causal necessity is just us being us, doing what we choose to do. And that is not a meaningful constraint. It is basically "what we would have done anyway".

However, there is such a thing as "freedom from coercion". And there is such a thing as "freedom from significant mental illness" and "freedom from hypnosis" and "freedom from the commands of authority" and "freedom from other forms of undue influence that might reasonably prevent us from choosing for ourselves what we will do".

Those are the freedoms that are implied by the "free" in "free will" and the "free" in "freely chosen" and the "free" in "free choice". Nothing more. Nothing less.

And these freedoms can and do exist within a deterministic system.

"Freedom from causal necessity" cannot exist within a deterministic system, of course. But there is no need for such a freedom, because causal necessity is not a meaningful constraint. It is not something that anyone can or needs to be free of.

It's a matter of time and fixed events. Things that can be done, generally speaking, cannot happen if not determined to happen in a given set of circumstances.

That is an example where it becomes clear why we need to clarify the difference between things that "can" happen versus things that "will" happen. And we should start breaking the habit of saying "cannot" when what we actually mean is "will not".

It is as simple correction to what you just said and should be viewed by determinists as a "friendly amendment":

"It's a matter of time and fixed events. Things that can be done, generally speaking, will not happen if not determined to happen in a given set of circumstances."

That's the point. It doesn't matter what 'can' be done when whatever happens, being necessitated, must happen, and in that moment in time, nothing else can happen in its stead.

And again:

That's the point. It doesn't matter what 'can' be done when whatever happens, being necessitated, must happen, and in that moment in time, nothing else will happen in its stead.

As to whether "what 'can' be done" matters, it matters a lot. What "can" be done constrains what "will" be done. If it cannot be done then it will not be done. However, the reverse, the notion that what "will" be done constrains what "can" be done, is false and paradoxical.

'No alternate action or choice' is not figurative: that is how determinism works and how it is defined.

It cannot be taken literally in view of the restaurant menu. The menu is actually there in empirical reality (which implies it was always causally necessary to be there), and it actually lists all of the items that we actually "can" choose to order. But it is not a list of what we actually "will" order, but only what we "can" order.

'Without deviation' is not figurative: that is how determinism works and how it is defined.

And the menu is there, exactly as it was determined (your metaphor) to be, without deviation. The only reason I use "(your metaphor)" is because the notion that some entity actually planned out all of the events in advance is a metaphor for reliable causation, the sequence of events caused by the natural interaction of the physical objects in the universe and the forces between them (we happen to be one of those objects and we can exert force upon other objects).

 

[DBT]

The fact is that you are either unable to grasp the implications of determinism as you yourself define it, or you are unwilling because it falsifies your cherished notion of free will

Apparently you're the one that fails to grasp it.

That's clearly not the case. Why? That should be obvious, unlike you I keep within the parameters and implications of determinism as it is defined by you and other compatibilists, You keep bringing up that the "implications of determinism" matter in some situation but fail to point to the things which those implications rule out on account of being required to the outcome.

YOU are the one who fails to understand those implications, as revealed by your failure to highlight in red the locations where those implications are stepped on in my logic.

Your so called logic fails because you fail to consider the nature and implications of determinism as you yourself define it.

The reasons have been explained time and again to no avail. The desire to retain the illusion of free will overrides your ability to see your errors even when they are pointed out.

 

[DBT]

We may think we can order something else.

We know for certain that we "can" order anything on the menu. That's one of the benefits of "can". There are multiple things that we "can" order, even though there is only one thing that we "will" order.

How can you order anything on the menu when your own definition tells you that you cannot? That is compatibilist wordplay designed to give the impression of freedom of choice and free will where there is none at work.

What you will order is a matter of must, not can or will. Being inevitable, entailed, it is what you must do without deviation or choice.

Deterministic 'decision making' being entailment rather than choice (no possible alternatives).

 

[Jarhyn]

You keep bringing up that the "implications of determinism" matter in some situation but fail to point to the things which those implications rule out on account of being required to the outcome

Shiny mirror on the wall. You are describing your own behavior.

If you could point to something, you would have. I keep asking you to highlight it in red. I filled in all the blanks, and you are here assuming that what? I must have missed something despite the fact that you can't find it?

The reasons have been explained time and again to no avail.

No, no reasons have been presented.

If they had, then you DBT would have the ability to highlight the invocation of logic relying on deviations and randomness, the implications you invoke, in red

What you will order is a matter of must, not can or will.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

We know for certain that we "can" order anything on the menu. That's one of the benefits of "can". There are multiple things that we "can" order, even though there is only one thing that we "will" order.

How can you order anything on the menu when your own definition tells you that you cannot?

My definition of determinism is that it is the reasonable belief that all events are reliably caused by prior events, such that everything that ever happens is causally necessary from any prior point in eternity, and will happen exactly as it does happen.

Because we often do not know in advance what "will" happen, the human mind has evolved the notion of possibilities, the multiple things that "can" happen, but which may never happen. And, it is consistent with determinism that we will now employ that notion of possibilities to deal with the restaurant menu as we choose what we will order for dinner.

Determinism limits what we will do, but it cannot limit what we can do, without breaking the notion of possibilities, and trapping us in a paradox, where we can no longer think of possibilities, but must sit on our thumbs and just wait to see what will happen (fatalism).

That is compatibilist wordplay designed to give the impression of freedom of choice and free will where there is none at work.

Ironically, it turns out that the incompatibilists are using wordplay to support their irrational position. Because there will be only one actual series of events, they assert that it is AS IF there is only one possible series of events, only one thing that can happen. That breaks the normal mental functions of imagination, evaluation, and choosing, the very things that intelligent life forms have evolved to cope with the many uncertainties of our lives.

It is delusional, and, if it significantly interferes with our ability to function, it may be considered a mental illness.

What you will order is a matter of must, not can or will. Being inevitable, entailed, it is what you must do without deviation or choice.

So, here I am in the restaurant, staring at the menu, with no ability to choose anything other than what I am destined to choose, but without any clue as to what that destiny is. How do you suppose we proceed from here?

Deterministic 'decision making' being entailment rather than choice (no possible alternatives).

And, by that statement, you've ruled out choosing anything from the menu. So, what do we do now?

 

[Jarhyn]

How do you suppose we proceed from here?

Obviously (to me) the answer is (though this will not be how DBT sees it) "sit back and allow some other opaque process within yourself to choose it without leveraging any input on it. Just let it happen. Be the bitch to something else in your own brain."

 

[DBT]

You keep bringing up that the "implications of determinism" matter in some situation but fail to point to the things which those implications rule out on account of being required to the outcome

Shiny mirror on the wall. You are describing your own behavior.

If you could point to something, you would have. I keep asking you to highlight it in red. I filled in all the blanks, and you are here assuming that what? I must have missed something despite the fact that you can't find it?

The reasons have been explained time and again to no avail.

No, no reasons have been presented.

If they had, then you DBT would have the ability to highlight the invocation of logic relying on deviations and randomness, the implications you invoke, in red

What you will order is a matter of must, not can or will.

Get your own mirror out, Sunshine. You still ignore whatever is explained and insist on your own erroneous version.

Again, try to grasp the implications of your own definition of determinism.

I don't expect that you can, given not only my explanations, but countless cited quotes, experiments in neuroscience, cognition, the nature of decision making....... not a hope, not after all this time.

 

[DBT]

We know for certain that we "can" order anything on the menu. That's one of the benefits of "can". There are multiple things that we "can" order, even though there is only one thing that we "will" order.

Not if you consider the nature of determinism.

All the things that happen in the world 'can happen,' but you know that's not the point.

It is the entailed events of a deterministic system that determine what can or can't happen in any given instance, where what happens must happen and what doesn't happen had no chance of happening (no deviation, all events fixed by prior states)

The key point here, once again, is the incremental moment by moment evolution of events, fixed by antecedents, entailing what does and what does not happen....in other words, what can and cannot happen in each and every incremental point in time (no deviation, events fixed by prior states of the system).

The rest is window dressing, word play designed to give the impression of a kind of freedom that does not exist within a deterministic system.


What Does Deterministic System Mean?
''A deterministic system is a system in which a given initial state or condition will always produce the same results. There is no randomness or variation in the ways that inputs get delivered as outputs.''

 

[Jarhyn]

You still ignore whatever is explained and insist on your own erroneous version

I will not stop insisting that if you wish to claim errors, then actually find them.

Again, try to grasp the implications of your own definition of determinism

If I'm not grasping implications, the surely you can locate the element of my position where I run roughshod over such implications.

To quote:

I don't expect that you can

As has been pointed out, all you have is assertions of the same form you have spewed, none of which have been justified.

We've all discussed why your neuroscience arguments are so much of a red herring, and in fact shown multiple systems LESS capable than those composed of neurons at expressing such rich relationships "doing the thing": formulating wills, and discovering they are free or unfree to execute certain elements of them.

It is the entailed events of a deterministic system that determine what can or can't happen in any given instance

No, those do not determine "can". What determines "can" is in fact the underlying truth of the system, not the immediate state.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

We know for certain that we "can" order anything on the menu. That's one of the benefits of "can". There are multiple things that we "can" order, even though there is only one thing that we "will" order.

Not if you consider the nature of determinism.

Determinism does not actually change anything. We observe the people in the restaurant, each considering the many items on the menu that they can order, and each telling the waiter the single thing that they will order.

All the things that happen in the world 'can happen,' but you know that's not the point.

The point is that there are many things that 'can happen' which never 'will happen'. Causal necessity never changes logical necessity.

It is the entailed events of a deterministic system that determine what can or can't happen in any given instance, where what happens must happen and what doesn't happen had no chance of happening (no deviation, all events fixed by prior states)

You should know by now that when you say "no chance of happening" you are shifting from the context of actuality into the context of possibility, and will be called on it.

By definition, anything on the menu that you are able to order "has a chance of happening".

By logical necessity, there must be at least two things that you "have a chance of" ordering before choosing can begin. (Just like, by logical necessity, there must be at least two numbers that you "have a chance of" adding together before addition can begin).

By causal necessity, there is no way to get to what we will order without going through the operation of choosing (just like there is no way to get to the sum without going through the operation of addition). It's that little matter of "no deviation". Choosing and adding are two logical operations that actually take place in physical reality.

The key point here, once again, is the incremental moment by moment evolution of events, fixed by antecedents, entailing what does and what does not happen...

Of course. And, in the restaurant, we will open the menu, consider our options, and place our orders. Each event entailing the next next event.

...in other words, what can and cannot happen ...

Correction: ...in other words, what will and will not happen...

in each and every incremental point in time (no deviation, events fixed by prior states of the system).

Correct. And in our restaurant, every customer will correctly believe that he or she can order any item on the menu. This will happen without deviation, as an event fixed by prior events.

What Does Deterministic System Mean?
''A deterministic system is a system in which a given initial state or condition will always produce the same results. There is no randomness or variation in the ways that inputs get delivered as outputs.''

Right. The same menu, given to the same person, under identical circumstances, will produce the same dinner order. The fact that neither the person nor the circumstances remain the same for very long results in different dinner orders at different times and gives the appearance of randomness.

 

[DBT]

You still ignore whatever is explained and insist on your own erroneous version

I will not stop insisting that if you wish to claim errors, then actually find them.

I have been pointing out your errors for some time. Which included cited quotes. You ignored it all.

It's like you are oblivious to any and every explanation that doesn't suit your belief in free will.

I could try again, but what's the point? You simply ignore whatever is said, provided or explained.

A waste of time.

Just for amusement, here is what Bruce Silverstein says on compatibilism, again;


Determinism: What are the best arguments for compatibilism? Bruce Silverstein
B.A. in Philosophy

There are none.

Compatibilists are unable to present a rational argument that supports their belief in the existence of free will in a deterministic universe, except by defining determinism and/or free will in a way that is a watered down version of one or both of the two concepts.

As I understand it, Determinism (which I take to be Causal Determinism) posits that all activity in the universe is both (i) the effect of [all] antecedent activity, and (ii) the only activity that can occur given the antecedent activity. That is what is meant by saying that everything is “determined” — it is the inexorable consequence of activity that preceded it. In a deterministic universe, everything that has ever occurred, is occurring, and will occur since the universe came into existence (however that might have occurred) can only occur exactly as it has occurred, is occurring, or will occur, and cannot possibly occur in any different manner. This mandated activity necessarily includes all human action, including all human cognition.

As I understand the notion of Free Will, it posits that a human being, when presented with more than one course of action, has the freedom or agency to choose between or among the alternatives, and that the state of affairs that exists in the universe immediately prior to the putative exercise of that freedom of choice does not eliminate all but one option and compel the selection of only one of the available options.

Based on the foregoing:

If Causal Determinism is true (i.e., accurately describes the state of the universe), then humans lack Free Will because the truth of Causal Determinism means that (a) humans lack the ability to think in a manner that is not 100% caused by prior activity that is outside of their control, as human cognition is simply a form of activity that is governed by Causal Determinism, and (b) there are no such thing as true “options” or “alternatives” because there is one, and only one, activity that can ever occur at any given instant; and
If Free-Will exists in its pure form, then Causal Determinism is not true because the existence of Free Will in its pure form depends upon (a) the existence of true “options” or “alternatives,” and (b) humans being capable of thinking (and acting) in a manner that is not 100% caused by prior activity that is outside their control.
As I understand Causal Determinism and Free Will, they are irreconcilably incompatible unless (i) Determinism is defined to exclude human cognition from the inexorable path of causation forged through the universe long before human beings came into existence, and/or (ii) Free Will is defined to be include the illusion of human cognition that is a part of the path of Determinism. As William James aptly observed:

“The issue . . . is a perfectly sharp one, which no eulogistic terminology can smear over or wipe out. The truth must lie with one side or the other, and its lying with one side makes the other false.”

I could write many pages describing the varied attempts of by Compatibilists to harmonize the irreconcilable concepts of Causal Determinism and Free Will, but it is unnecessary for me to do so, as there is an excellent discussion of this subject on-line at Compatibilism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). It should suffice to say that none of the various arguments for Compatibilism courageously presented on the Stanford website is satisfying, and all suffer from the same flaw identified above — namely, a stubborn refusal to come to grips with the true and complete nature of Causal Determinism and Free Will. Or, as William James less generously observed, all efforts to harmonize Causal Determinism and Free Will are a “quagmire of evasion.”

 

[DBT]

We know for certain that we "can" order anything on the menu. That's one of the benefits of "can". There are multiple things that we "can" order, even though there is only one thing that we "will" order.

Not if you consider the nature of determinism.

Determinism does not actually change anything. We observe the people in the restaurant, each considering the many items on the menu that they can order, and each telling the waiter the single thing that they will order.

What 'can' be ordered cannot happen in any given instance if that order is not determined to happen in that instance, time and place by that customer.

That is the point.

That the decision carried out is a matter of necessity or entailment rather than choice, which is the ability to take any option at any given instance of being presented with multiple options.

That, given determinism, is of course is an illusion formed through limited information on how the system, the world, our environment, is unfolding as it must according to how you define determinism.

That's the essence of it. No realizable alternatives, no choice. What happens must happen. What you do, you must necessarily do regardless of the presence or absence of external force, coercion or undue influence.

The distinction being 'acting according to your will necessarily' or being forced or coerced against your will.''

The distinction is there, yet our will is not free in either case. It is just 'will' and action as determined.

That's determinism.

 

[Jarhyn]

I have been pointing out your errors for some time.

No, you've been pointing out things which you claim would constitute errors (you claim there are references which are violations of the requirement of "no randomness" or "no deviation), however you fail to actually point out where you believe I would be making those errors.

That the decision carried out is a matter of necessity or entailment rather than choice

"That the choice carried out is a matter of necessity or entailment rather than choice"

When we apply the synonym replacement, the silliness and contradiction in your thought process is laid bare. Every decision is a fixed, deterministic choice.

This does not ever prevent alternatives from being logically "realizable", it only prevents them from being immediately realized.

The fact is that if our universe is deterministic, it has a general set of laws which can in fact be represented entirely with human language, with a semantic structure, and that this implies the ability to look at those truth relationships with a goal in mind, and reverse through those truths to find a configuration one wishes to have, and then the truth of the human brain is entirely capable of using that as an input to produce an output which will provide the state necessary for creating a transition that yields the goal configuration.

For example, let's say the goal is to have the final output Z=1.

Let's look at some truths of a simple Deterministic system, where C is something whose value is not directly accessible as an output of the "solver" element in the machine, and D is an output of the "solver".

A B Z (Z = A && B)
0 0 0
0 1 0
1 0 0
1 1 1

C A (A = !C)
0 1
1 0

C D B (B = C XOR D)
0 0 0
1 0 1
0 1 1
1 1 0

This means, logically, to produce a Z of 1, both an A of 1 and a B of 1 are necessary.

Assuming A is 1, this means that one must look at the truth which determines B.

This means some things can be known about the state of the system: that C is 0, that D is currently 0.

This means a truth table of choice in D on AB for Z=1

A B D Success (Z=1)
0 0 D 0
1 0 1 1
0 1 D 0
1 1 1 1

as such as long as A and B are inputs to the solver, the solver can choose, as above, for Z to be 1, by applying the above heuristic, but only when A is already 1.

as such the re are situations where the will will be free (A=1) and situations where the will will be constrained (A=0).