Demystifying Determinism

[Marvin Edwards]

If it was "the system at large" that chose to order the Salad, why did the waiter bring the dinner bill to me?

Because the waiter has no idea of what is going to be ordered.

I said to the waiter, "I will have the Salad, please". The waiter brought me the salad and the bill.

The waiter did not bring the salad or the bill to "the system at large", because your theory that it is not me, but "the system at large" that ordered the salad is meaningless and irrelevant.

That's the point.

We don't have the necessary information to predict future events with any great accuracy. ...

Yes. And it is precisely because we lack that foresight into the future that we humans evolved the notion of "possibilities", things that "might" happen and things that we "can" do.

If we knew in advance what was "determined" to happen then words like "options" or things that "can" happen would be unnecessary.

In the restaurant, we don't even know what we will order until we open the menu, see the many things that we "can" order, and decide what we "will" order. That's the whole point of the context of "possibilities", to give us the freedom to evaluate our options, and choose from among the many things that we "can" order the single thing that we "will" order.

You can probably fairly accurately predict what close associates or your partner will order because you know them well. Some who are very close can finish each other's sentences or voice their partner's thoughts and feelings. Identical twins, etc.

Of course. Someone with omniscience like God, Laplace's Daemon, or the guy's wife, could predict what he would order before he knew himself. But he will never know himself until he finishes making up his mind.

But the waiter has no such privileged information, nor does the management of the restaurant. They just cater to a wide range of tastes and proclivities.

Like I said at the outset, the waiter knows exactly what I ordered because I already told him. He does not bring the salad or the bill to "the system at large". He brings the bill to me, because it was I, and not "the system at large", that ordered the salad.

I am the one responsible for the bill because I am the one that ordered the salad. That's how both free will and responsibility work.

Proclivities:
''It is unimportant whether one's resolutions and preferences occur because an ''ingenious physiologist' has tampered with one's brain, whether they result from narcotics addiction, from 'hereditary factor, or indeed from nothing at all.' Ultimately the agent has no control over his cognitive states.

So even if the agent has strength, skill, endurance, opportunity, implements, and knowledge enough to engage in a variety of enterprises, still he lacks mastery over his basic attitudes and the decisions they produce. After all, we do not have occasion to choose our dominant proclivities.' - Prof. Richard Taylor -Metaphysics.

Professor Taylor is wrong on both counts. First, it matters a hell of a lot whether we make the choice for ourselves or if an "ingenious physiologist" tampered with our brain. Tampering with a person's brain to control their decisions is clearly an undue influence! Second, my hereditary proclivities happen to be integral parts of who and what I am. Whatever they lead me to choose, I have chosen. They are not an undue influence.

The problem with your assertion is that it contradicts the facts. The waiter saw me reading the menu. The waiter heard me say, "I will have the Chef Salad, please".

That doesn't relate to what I said. Check my outline above. I've said it before.

Your outline above was a detour taken to avoid the question on the table. How is the waiter, or anyone else, supposed to hold "the system at large" responsible for my dinner order? Your proposition that we shift the responsibility from me to "the system at large" is totally unworkable.

Do you wish to claim that the waiter is having an illusion?
Are you suggesting that the bill for my dinner should be paid by "the system at large"? If so, then how would that be done?

That still misses the point. The system at large is the world, the nation, the culture of nation, its cuisine, cafe's restaurants, menus, the town you live the restaurant you go to, the proclivities of its customers, Indian, Asian, Italian, Greek, etc, etc. Countless different preferences being catered for, yet given determinism.....you guessed it: in any given instance that a decision is made, ...

The decision will be causally necessary from any prior point in time. I will decide to order the Salad, even though it was also possible to order the Steak.

And, I will be held responsible for that choice when the waiter brings me the dinner bill. None of the other items you listed will be held responsible for my choice. After all, I still made that choice of my own free will, even though it was causally necessary that I would do so. Causal necessity never picks up the check for dinner. So, we should stop pretending that it will.

Hence decision making within a deterministic system is not choosing, rather, a process of entailment.

Geez, talk about wordplay! Decision making IS choosing! If it is deterministically entailed that decision making will happen, then there is no getting around us choosing.

Decisions are entailed, not freely chosen or freely willed.

If it is deterministically entailed that we will be making that choice while free of coercion and undue influence, then it is entailed that our choice will be freely chosen and freely willed. Again, there is no getting around choosing happening exactly as it does happen.

Free will is a deterministic event. It is not free of causal necessity/inevitability, but it is free of coercion and undue influence. And those are the only things that free will cares about.

There is no need to be free of causal necessity/inevitability, because it is not a meaningful or relevant constraint. It is exactly identical to us just being us, doing what we choose to do. It changes nothing.

 

[The AntiChris]

was compromised of

This should, of course, have been "was comprised of".

 

[DBT]

Couldn't be bothered wading back through numerous posts

@Marvin Edwards: and you were wondering whether it was really necessary to keep digging up my original challenge that he find it...

Give your best argument and I'll deal with it tomorrow.

No, you won't, you were given it through the thread and you'll do your own damn work. It's the least you can do after over a year of making bald assertions.

Whining.

Couldn't be bothered wading back through numerous posts

@Marvin Edwards: and you were wondering whether it was really necessary to keep digging up my original challenge that he find it...

Give your best argument and I'll deal with it tomorrow.

No, you won't, you were given it through the thread and you'll do your own damn work. It's the least you can do after over a year of making bald assertions.

You do your own work. I have addressed your fallacies. I don't have the time or patience to go back through countless posts, that's all.

Nor do I have much interest in dealing with your childish manner, yet here I am.

I'm pretty sure the implications are there. And that I pointed them out.

No, claiming they're in there somewhere is not "pointing them out" it's making an "an assertion fallacy".

Yet more whining.

You have to isolate the words that contain the implications, state why the words make the implications, and how those implications invalidate the conclusion, and you have to manage to do it without stepping in the modal and the genetic fallacy.

Irrelevant.

This is to say, without claiming that "because you didn't choose your present state, you didn't make a choice in your present state" (something can X without being the product of its own X, even when X is choice).

There is your example showing that you do not understand your own definition of determinism.

Given determinism, all current states are entailed by prior states of the system. The initial state is not chosen and the system evolves according to antecedents, not will or choice.

In other words, the present is entailed by the past which in turn entails the future..

Once 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.''

The fact that you don't understand this, haven't understood this, is exactly what has frustrated @Marvin Edwards @pood, @bilby, @The AntiChris, et al.

It's wrong for the given reasons. Reasons that are routinely ignored.

Given your remarks

Which remarks? You're right back to doing nothing and yet still claiming credit.

Remarks like this - (something can X without being the product of its own X, even when X is choice).

You conflate the decision making process with choice when there is never a possibility of an alternate decision.

The decision making process in determinism is a matter of entailment not choice because choice requires the possibility of doing otherwise but determinism does not permit alternatives.

This has all been explained over and over.

That is an example of your failure to grasp the implications of your own definition of determinism.

implications of your own definition of determinism or your attempts at justifying compatibilism

"No deviation"? "No randomness"?

The thing that defines a system as Deterministic (and when you can actually create a deterministic system, and prove it's deterministic, come find me. I've been there and done that...) Does not prevent anything I have discussed.

As has been repeatedly pointed out, the thing that makes a system "deterministic" is that its state transitions happen on the basis of fixed logical truth.

The initial state is not actually what makes it deterministic. The thing that makes it deterministic is the "state diagram" of the system, that for every input, there is a knowable output.

Initial state sets the conditions that determine how the system evolves or develops.


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.''

Why does this have to be pointed out again?

It's another example of your failure to grasp the nature and implications of determinism.

That's all I have time for.

 

[DBT]

That's ridiculous.

It really isn't. Everything I wrote is completely accurate.

Only in your own mind.

It would have been helpful if you'd taken the time to point out precisely what you thought was inaccurate and why.

Been done countless times, every day over the course of a year or more. And still you ask. Is it a difficulty with comprehension or memory?

You not only ignore what I say, but all that I quote and cite. You made no effort in addressing what I said or quoted.

You just pretend that nothing has been said, explained or provided.

Meanwhile, you ignored everything that I said and everything that I quoted and cited.

Your response was compromised of one of your standard expressions or derision you trot out whenever someone disagrees with you and yet another random quote from your vast library of anti-compatibilist opinions. None of which was relevant to the point I had been making.

Did you miss the descriptions, quotes and citations? Of course, you did. Never mind your own derision. That's why it's come to this point.
If you want to post an actual argument or a rebuttal of incompatibilism, do it. You never have, and I doubt you ever will.

 

[DBT]

If it was "the system at large" that chose to order the Salad, why did the waiter bring the dinner bill to me?

You know better than that. Do I have to explain that a system is the sum total of its parts, that because the parts interact deterministically, the system is defined as deterministic, ie, determinism?

Why do you keep trotting this old chestnut out?

I said to the waiter, "I will have the Salad, please". The waiter brought me the salad and the bill.

The waiter did not bring the salad or the bill to "the system at large", because your theory that it is not me, but "the system at large" that ordered the salad is meaningless and irrelevant.

That's the point.

There it is again.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

If it was "the system at large" that chose to order the Salad, why did the waiter bring the dinner bill to me?

Do I have to explain that a system is the sum total of its parts, that because the parts interact deterministically, the system is defined as deterministic, ie, determinism?

Your notion, that there is a "system at large" that is more responsible for my dinner order than I am, is superstitious nonsense. That's why I keep pointing it out to you. It is deterministic mythology, not deterministic fact. And it is a rather useless and certainly impractical myth.

The universe does not act as a system. It contains many systems, such as our solar system, which contains our earth, and its biosystem, which in turn contains us, each of us with our own central nervous system. And each of these systems behave deterministically.

But if we are to deal meaningfully with the world and its events, we must recognize which systems are doing what.

For example, we don't have to deal with the solar system in order to choose what we will have for dinner. Nor will the waiter give any thought to the position of the stars and planets when determining who ordered the salad and who must pay for it.

I am responsible for my dinner order. It was my own central nervous system, acting independently of any cosmic events, that decided to order the Salad instead of the Steak for dinner. That's why the waiter brings me the salad and the bill for my dinner order.

It was not "the system at large" that ordered the salad, but "the system within me", acting on my behalf, to serve my own need for dinner, that ordered the salad.

The waiter and I are able to keep these simple facts straight. I am suggesting that you try to do the same.

 

[Jarhyn]

You do your own work

Are you fucking kidding me? I've done it 7 goddamn times at least and not one of those times did you ever actually respond with more than mere assertions and a failure to apply logic . I even brought back at least one of those posts several times, until @Marvin Edwards complained.

Hey @Marvin Edwards I expect some crow on your plate this morning.

I have addressed your fallacies

The way you use this, it makes it clear you don't understand what a fallacy even is.

I don't have the time or patience to go back through countless posts, that's all.

To hold up a mirror, this is

Whining

Nor do I have much interest in dealing with your childish manner, yet here I am

Oh look...

Yet more whining.

You have to isolate the words that contain the implications, state why the words make the implications, and how those implications invalidate the conclusion, and you have to manage to do it without stepping in the modal and the genetic fallacy.

Irrelevant.

Not irrelevant, it's the basis for logical reasoning and discussion. If you can't perform the act of logical reasoning, quit claiming to have a logical argument.

The only translation I have for this confluence of believing logical reasoning is irrelevant is because your position is not logically sound.

There is your example showing that you do not understand your own definition of determinism

It just means I don't accept your junky fallacious assertions.

The initial state is not chosen

And now we are into irrelevant things.

Observe... Any video game at all. Replace the controller input with a deterministic process.

The initial state is not chosen, and a wide variety of states are not reifiable from that initial state. Yet still, I can logic out what the state would be when the system is presented some other initial state. I can say "if the universe contained nothing but 0's in this region, then the behavior would be (instruction that triggers an interrupt in 5 seconds which leads to reset to the default initial condition)", for example.

The fact that the initial condition is not chosen does not mean that a different condition cannot be simulated against the truth of the system.

At this point I don't think you are qualified to have this discussion, any more than I think FreethoughtPariah was qualified to discuss such topics as evolution, or how to wipe his own ass without leaving poo behind.

You conflate the decision making process with choice when there is never a possibility of an alternate decision

The decision making process is "choice". It all comes back to that primitive concept.

You seem to be unable to perform enough abstractions at one time to parse through the execution of a regulatory control.

The decision making process in determinism is a matter of entailment not choice because choice requires the possibility of doing otherwise but determinism does not permit alternatives

Determinism does not permit alternative realities. It absolutely permits alternative possibilities, because possibilities can be simulated against the truth of the system from within the system without needing immediate reification as a formal universe.

I explained this by doing a deconstruction of compatibilist choice. It is SUPER EASY to find by searching the thread and finding "highlight it red". I'm pretty sure it will be the first hit.

Initial state sets the conditions that determine how the system evolves or develops.

Not in ANY Deterministic system humans have ever seen or designed.

The system definition defines how the system evolves or develops, and the initial state just constrains, within that definition of "can", what "shall" happen.

We develop the system definition through reverse engineering it from the inside, which is perfectly fine, as long as the system is logical (and so a system of any kind) and thus conclusions about it can be reached at all.

 

[The AntiChris]

If you want to post an actual argument or a rebuttal of incompatibilism, do it. You never have, and I doubt you ever will.

Compatibilism and incompatibilism, as debated on this forum, are not mutually exclusive positions. They address different notions of free will.

I'm pretty sure all the compatibilists here would wholeheartedly agree with you that libertarian/contra-causal free will is incompatible with determinism.

This being the case, no one here is even attempting to produce a "rebuttal of incompatibilism", we're arguing for a realistic, practical/commonsense version of free will.

The only aspect of incompatibilism compatibilists disagree with is the incompatibilists' refusal to recognise any alternative to nonsensical libertarian free will.

That you expect a "rebuttal of incompatibilism" from compatibilists confirms for me that you still do not understand the issues being debated here.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

If you want to post an actual argument or a rebuttal of incompatibilism, do it. You never have, and I doubt you ever will.

Compatibilism and incompatibilism, as debated on this forum, are not mutually exclusive positions. They address different notions of free will.

I'm pretty sure all the compatibilists here would wholeheartedly agree with you that libertarian/contra-causal free will is incompatible with determinism.

This being the case, no one here is even attempting to produce a "rebuttal of incompatibilism", we're arguing for a realistic, practical/commonsense version of free will.

The only aspect of incompatibilism compatibilists disagree with is the incompatibilists' refusal to recognise any alternative to nonsensical libertarian free will.

That you expect a "rebuttal of incompatibilism" from compatibilists confirms for me that you still do not understand the issues being debated here.

I suspect that any argument for compatibilism may be viewed as a rebuttal of incompatibilism.

 

[Jarhyn]

If you want to post an actual argument or a rebuttal of incompatibilism, do it. You never have, and I doubt you ever will.

Compatibilism and incompatibilism, as debated on this forum, are not mutually exclusive positions. They address different notions of free will.

I'm pretty sure all the compatibilists here would wholeheartedly agree with you that libertarian/contra-causal free will is incompatible with determinism.

This being the case, no one here is even attempting to produce a "rebuttal of incompatibilism", we're arguing for a realistic, practical/commonsense version of free will.

The only aspect of incompatibilism compatibilists disagree with is the incompatibilists' refusal to recognise any alternative to nonsensical libertarian free will.

That you expect a "rebuttal of incompatibilism" from compatibilists confirms for me that you still do not understand the issues being debated here.

I think the bigger issue is...

DBT, I'm almost certain at this point, is using this incompatibility as a scaffold on which he built other ideas, and without the load bearing of the Incompatibilist rejection of Compatibilism, that work doesn't get done and an existential crisis, or possibly several, will (re?-)emerge.

We as humans generally suck at existential crisis in the best of situations, and I think this is one of the reasons that DBT regards these as such attacks. If we succeed, DBT is not going to have a good time if it, because then he needs to sort through his entire history of "responsibilities".

What happens when the Christian realizes that their ideas of God are a cage designed by men?

So, I think there is a deeper problem here.

I would like to start discussing responsibility within the context of Compatibilism, now that compatibilism has been proven thoroughly (that will, freedom, and choice are valid and built on fundamental logical primitives of set theory), and libertarian free will so thoroughly thoroughly shown to be axiomatically contradictory.

The nice thing about compatibilism is that it does lead away from a nonsensical criminal justice system that can be used to justify literally any abuse. After all, because libertarian free will is insane, it can be the source of justifying anything at all.

Instead, it isolates the "ought" of moral rules to discussions of goals and agents and symmetry of agent goals and allows discussion of a "least action" towards "mutually compatible chaos". As I was typing this I realized that there's a fundamental tie-in to entropy and energy, in the discussion of "power to" vs "power over".

 

[The AntiChris]

I suspect that any argument for compatibilism may be viewed as a rebuttal of incompatibilism.

The problem of course is that if it is viewed this way, the defenders of incompatibilism see it as a rebuttal of the incompatibility of libertarian free will with determinism which it clearly isn't.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

I suspect that any argument for compatibilism may be viewed as a rebuttal of incompatibilism.

The problem of course is that if it is viewed this way, the defenders of incompatibilism see it as a rebuttal of the incompatibility of libertarian free will with determinism which it clearly isn't.

Oh! That never occurred to me, even when you spelled it out. Thanks.

 

[DBT]

You do your own work

Are you fucking kidding me? I've done it 7 goddamn times at least and not one of those times did you ever actually respond with more than mere assertions and a failure to apply logic . I even brought back at least one of those posts several times, until @Marvin Edwards complained.

Hey @Marvin Edwards I expect some crow on your plate this morning.

You've done nothing but get your knickers in a twist.

I have addressed your fallacies

The way you use this, it makes it clear you don't understand what a fallacy even is.

Have a look in your little shiny mirror.

You seem to be unable to perform enough abstractions at one time to parse through the execution of a regulatory control.

The subject matter is not a matter abstraction, but the compatibility of free will and determinism, as it is defined by compatibilists.

It is you go running wildly through a tangle of abstractions that have no relevance to the issue.

The decision making process in determinism is a matter of entailment not choice because choice requires the possibility of doing otherwise but determinism does not permit alternatives

Determinism does not permit alternative realities. It absolutely permits alternative possibilities, because possibilities can be simulated against the truth of the system from within the system without needing immediate reification as a formal universe.

Utter Crock. Your own definition stipulates no randomness. Which means no deviation or alternative actions.

That is an example of your abstract nonsense and your inability to grasp the implications of your own definition of determinism.

I explained this by doing a deconstruction of compatibilist choice. It is SUPER EASY to find by searching the thread and finding "highlight it red". I'm pretty sure it will be the first hit.

More whining.

Initial state sets the conditions that determine how the system evolves or develops.

Not in ANY Deterministic system humans have ever seen or designed.

The system definition defines how the system evolves or develops, and the initial state just constrains, within that definition of "can", what "shall" happen.

We develop the system definition through reverse engineering it from the inside, which is perfectly fine, as long as the system is logical (and so a system of any kind) and thus conclusions about it can be reached at all.

So there it is, you have no understanding of how determinism is defined.

Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law. - Stanford.

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.''

''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:


''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.

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

 

[DBT]

If you want to post an actual argument or a rebuttal of incompatibilism, do it. You never have, and I doubt you ever will.

Compatibilism and incompatibilism, as debated on this forum, are not mutually exclusive positions. They address different notions of free will.

Lordy, Lordy......one is the very opposite to the other.

Compatibilism claims that free will is compatible with determinism and formulates a definition to that effect.

Incompatibilism claims that free will is not compatible with determinism and explains why in terms of the nature of will, cognition, thought and action in relation to determinism.

I'm pretty sure all the compatibilists here would wholeheartedly agree with you that libertarian/contra-causal free will is incompatible with determinism.

This being the case, no one here is even attempting to produce a "rebuttal of incompatibilism", we're arguing for a realistic, practical/commonsense version of free will.

The only aspect of incompatibilism compatibilists disagree with is the incompatibilists' refusal to recognise any alternative to nonsensical libertarian free will.

That you expect a "rebuttal of incompatibilism" from compatibilists confirms for me that you still do not understand the issues being debated here.

You are way off the mark.

 

[DBT]

If it was "the system at large" that chose to order the Salad, why did the waiter bring the dinner bill to me?

Do I have to explain that a system is the sum total of its parts, that because the parts interact deterministically, the system is defined as deterministic, ie, determinism?

Your notion, that there is a "system at large" that is more responsible for my dinner order than I am, is superstitious nonsense. That's why I keep pointing it out to you. It is deterministic mythology, not deterministic fact. And it is a rather useless and certainly impractical myth.

I said the system at large is composed of a deterministic interaction of its constituent parts. Why do you ignore this, only to repeat your strawman?

The universe does not act as a system. It contains many systems, such as our solar system, which contains our earth, and its biosystem, which in turn contains us, each of us with our own central nervous system. And each of these systems behave deterministically.

I said the system at large is composed of a deterministic interaction of its constituent parts.

But if we are to deal meaningfully with the world and its events, we must recognize which systems are doing what.

For example, we don't have to deal with the solar system in order to choose what we will have for dinner. Nor will the waiter give any thought to the position of the stars and planets when determining who ordered the salad and who must pay for it.

I am responsible for my dinner order. It was my own central nervous system, acting independently of any cosmic events, that decided to order the Salad instead of the Steak for dinner. That's why the waiter brings me the salad and the bill for my dinner order.

It was not "the system at large" that ordered the salad, but "the system within me", acting on my behalf, to serve my own need for dinner, that ordered the salad.

The waiter and I are able to keep these simple facts straight. I am suggesting that you try to do the same.

I said the system at large is composed of a deterministic interaction of its constituent parts. And I have also said that you, the waiter, the management and all the customers in the restaurant are the constituent parts of the system interacting deterministically, explaining that nobody has access to the necessary information to enable making perfect predictions of what is going to happen.

Which is why neither the management or the waiter has any idea of what a customer may order, and why they have a list of foods on their menu.

Further pointing out that given determinism, each and every order is a necessary action. That in that moment in time, no other action is possible, making the decision making process a matter of entailment rather than choice.

This is according to your own terms;

''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.

 

[The AntiChris]

Compatibilism and incompatibilism, as debated on this forum, are not mutually exclusive positions. They address different notions of free will.

Lordy, Lordy......one is the very opposite to the other.

They're opposites only if both (compatibilism and incompatibilism) refer to the same notion of 'free will'.

Do you not accept/understand that they address different conceptions of free will?

 

[Jarhyn]

Utter Crock. Your own definition stipulates no randomness. Which means no deviation or alternative actions

And then you did it yet again.

You make this claim you think is so clever but it doesn't actually mean anything.

There are no actual deviations or randomness in compatibilist choice in the first place. This was explained repeatedly when I originally presented a compatibilist choice, many, many times.

You seem to be unable to perform enough abstractions at one time to parse through the execution of a regulatory control.

The subject matter is not a matter [of] abstraction, but the compatibility of free will and determinism, as it is defined by compatibilists.

It is you [who] go running wildly through a tangle of abstractions that have no relevance to the issue.

Understanding why these concepts are compatible is a matter of abstraction. At least two abstraction layers, in fact.

The first abstraction is in abstracting the behavior of some stuff to a logical operation or a mathematical function, and the second is an abstraction of a goal to an instruction.

There is possibly a third layer of abstraction in seeing this as a general process.

Abstract thought is at the core of this, and an incapability to do it indicates an inability to apply set theory to solve certain kinds of problems. Sadly, I think this is one of the problems that is out of reach of some people.

I explained this by doing a deconstruction of compatibilist choice. It is SUPER EASY to find by searching the thread and finding "highlight it red". I'm pretty sure it will be the first hit.

More whining

You realize that your accusing me of whining here is a whinge over the fact you don't want to do something that takes 30 seconds to a minute?

I'm going to continue using your utter inability to scroll to the top of the page, type "highlight" in the top box of the search, type "jarhyn" in the second box, click on a name, click "search", and then quote one of the if not the absolute first hit on the list..

It took me an order of magnitude of time longer to type this description than it took me to do it, and post this screenshot so I could shame your laziness and whining:




From this evidence it looks like post 778 is a good candidate. Maybe 765? Pick one.

Again, posted as a screenshot so you have to actually go through the work again and do it yourself.

Initial state sets the conditions that determine how the system evolves or develops.

The system definition defines how the system evolves or develops, and the initial state just constrains, within that definition of "can", what "shall" happen.

So there it is, you have no understanding of how determinism is defined.

Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law. - Stanford.

So, this is one of those points where abstractions have to be accessible to understand what is going on, abstractions you seem frustrated that you cannot parse.

I want to compare these two, by bolding sections, and text size formatting them once the synonymous regions are dealt with:

The system definition defines how the system evolves or develops, and the initial state just constrains, within that definition of "can", what "shall" happen.

Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law. - Stanford

(The natural law being referenced by Stanford is the system definition I refer to)

The system definition defines how the system evolves or develops, and the initial state just constrains, within that definition of "can", what "shall" happen.

Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law. - Stanford

(These are both references to the initial condition re: last thursdayism: all immediate states at all times may be treated as initial conditions to any state machine)

The system definition defines how the system evolves or develops, and the initial state just constrains, within that definition of "can", what "shall" happen.

Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law. - Stanford

(Each of these serves as saying that the system operates on the state, rather than the state defining the system itself.)

The system definition defines how the system evolves or develops, and the initial state just constrains, within that definition of "can", what "shall" happen.

Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law. - Stanford

(Here, the term "is governed by" is "is constrained in what shall happen by" namely indicating the juxtaposition of a logical truth with an immediate state such that the logical truth defined the state evolution).

Again and again you try to pretend people understand even less about these definitions than you do but without the ability to multiply abstract, someone would promptly find themselves on the wrong side of dunning-kruger.

There are two elements to this discussion: the state, and the rules that govern state transitions.

Each can be treated separately, and because they can be separated, solutions can be generated for a future goal state.

To find the first post where I discussed that, just do the exercise like this:




It looks like post 1,082 would get you close to where you need to be to see the fact that knowledge about the system and it's states leads to the ability to solve for future states.

Now go on whining about how you have been lazy in the past...

 

[Marvin Edwards]

If it was "the system at large" that chose to order the Salad, why did the waiter bring the dinner bill to me?

Your notion, that there is a "system at large" that is more responsible for my dinner order than I am, is superstitious nonsense. That's why I keep pointing it out to you. It is deterministic mythology, not deterministic fact. And it is a rather useless and certainly impractical myth.

I said the system at large is composed of a deterministic interaction of its constituent parts. Why do you ignore this, only to repeat your strawman?

There is no "system at large" that does anything relevant to my dinner order. Why do you continue to insist that there is?

The universe does not act as a system. It contains many systems, such as our solar system, which contains our earth, and its biosystem, which in turn contains us, each of us with our own central nervous system. And each of these systems behave deterministically.

I said the system at large is composed of a deterministic interaction of its constituent parts.

Okay. And why is that relevant to the topic of free will?

If we are to deal meaningfully with the world and its events, we must recognize which systems are doing what.

For example, we don't have to deal with the solar system in order to choose what we will have for dinner. Nor will the waiter give any thought to the position of the stars and planets when determining who ordered the salad and who must pay for it.

I am responsible for my dinner order. It was my own central nervous system, acting independently of any cosmic events, that decided to order the Salad instead of the Steak for dinner. That's why the waiter brings me the salad and the bill for my dinner order.

It was not "the system at large" that ordered the salad, but "the system within me", acting on my behalf, to serve my own need for dinner, that ordered the salad.

The waiter and I are able to keep these simple facts straight. I am suggesting that you try to do the same.

... the waiter, the management and all the customers in the restaurant are the constituent parts of the system interacting deterministically ...

Then you're speaking specifically of the restaurant system, not the "system at large". We know how the restaurant system works. The restaurant offers us a menu of dinners that they are able to prepare. They provide this menu to the customers to inform them what it is possible for them to order. The customers consider the many things that they can order, decide what they will order, and tell the waiter.

... explaining that nobody has access to the necessary information to enable making perfect predictions of what is going to happen. Which is why neither the management or the waiter has any idea of what a customer may order, and why they have a list of foods on their menu.

We can certainly predict that each customer will sit at a table, open the menu, and choose for themselves what they will have for dinner.

We cannot predict what each customer will order. Each customer is expected to figure that out for themselves. Figuring this out is called "choosing" or "deciding" what they will order. And each customer is free to make this choice for themselves.

Further pointing out that given determinism, each and every order is a necessary action.

Of course.

That in that moment in time, no other action is possible, making the decision making process a matter of entailment rather than choice.

It is possible to order any (or every) item on the menu. Possibilities are logically entailed by the restaurant system. The restaurant system requires a menu of possibilities. The restaurant cannot be a restaurant without a menu. If it had only hot dogs it could be a hot dog stand, but not a restaurant.

Assuming that it is deterministically entailed that there be restaurants (and that appears to be the obvious case), then restaurant menus, listing multiple possibilities, are also deterministically entailed.

And it is likewise deterministically entailed that the customers will view this menu as a list of the many items that they can order for dinner.

This is according to your own terms;

The claim that deterministic entailment eliminates possibilities or decision making is totally yours, not mine. I have explained to you, why this is so, many times, and I've just finished doing it again.

All of these events, including my choices, are causally necessary from any prior point in time. And they all proceed without deviation from the Big Bang to this moment. And each choice I make will logically begin with at least two real possibilities to choose from. And because it is true at the outset, of any decision making, that there will be at least two things that I can choose, it will also be true that after my decision, there will be the single thing that I will do, plus at least one other thing that I could have done, but didn't.

Determinism does not eliminate possibilities. It only constrains the actuality. Possibilities are causally necessary because they are part of the choosing system.

 

[Jarhyn]

The universe does not act as a system

That isn't actually true. "Is Deterministic" is "Is a system wholely bound to deterministic logic"

The thing you appear to be trying to say is "the universe does not appear to act with intent as a system, so as to drive towards predefined goals".

In other words "The initial condition is not observably optimized towards a final condition."

This is synonymous with "there are zero or more observable creator gods."

To say "more than zero", as you note, would be superstitious nonsense.

To say "zero" would be to declare yourself unreasonable, incapable of accepting observations even if they were made.

I expect this is yet another hidey-hole for inappropriate religious absolutions, yet another repeat of the classic "the devil made me do it".

If "the devil" makes someone do something, it means they need to learn better how to fight "the devil".

 

[Marvin Edwards]

The universe does not act as a system

That isn't actually true. "Is Deterministic" is "Is a system wholely bound to deterministic logic"

The thing you appear to be trying to say is "the universe does not appear to act with intent as a system, so as to drive towards predefined goals".

In other words "The initial condition is not observably optimized towards a final condition."

This is synonymous with "there are zero or more observable creator gods."

To say "more than zero", as you note, would be superstitious nonsense.

To say "zero" would be to declare yourself unreasonable, incapable of accepting observations even if they were made.

I expect this is yet another hidey-hole for inappropriate religious absolutions, yet another repeat of the classic "the devil made me do it".

If "the devil" makes someone do something, it means they need to learn better how to fight "the devil".

I like to say that the universe literally "has no skin in the game", while we literally do. We care about consequences because we have an interest in surviving and thriving.