Demystifying Determinism

[pood]

So you don't assume a first cause. Ok. one thing I am not seeing is actual evidence that determinism is correct, rather than things being probabilistic. There are many varieties of QM that are not deterministic. If everything is deterministic, there is no such thing as actual choice, because your 'choices' are preprogramed and predetermined.

Determinism is not the same thing as predeterminism.

 

[Jarhyn]

So you don't assume a first cause. Ok. one thing I am not seeing is actual evidence that determinism is correct, rather than things being probabilistic. There are many varieties of QM that are not deterministic. If everything is deterministic, there is no such thing as actual choice, because your 'choices' are preprogramed and predetermined.

Determinism is not the same thing as predeterminism.

Though if I understand right, I'm seeing no differentiation between predeterminism and fatalaism.

For the record, I created an instance of a deterministic system in mathematical isolation, and I don't know what's going to happen and the things that are going to happen are a chaotic numerical projection from a seed: the whole point is that I didn't  predetermine anything about the system, the system just determined it. I may have foreknowledge of how the determinism goes, but that doesn't mean it is  predetermined.

For something to be  pre determined, it has to actually be stated at the beginning. It was  predetermined there would be 12 "volcanoes". It was determined by course that one of those volcanoes would be located at 300,345 of the global topology.

It was   predetermined that the words "The" "Firey" and "Tooth" would be valid name segments. It was determined by course that the system select this combination of all the possible combinations across all possible seeds (which increases when one varies the RNG as a part of seed function) as the name for that mountain in this function.

I would hope that this absolutely clarifies that there is a difference between determinism and predetermination.

 

[ramoss]

So you don't assume a first cause. Ok. one thing I am not seeing is actual evidence that determinism is correct, rather than things being probabilistic. There are many varieties of QM that are not deterministic. If everything is deterministic, there is no such thing as actual choice, because your 'choices' are preprogramed and predetermined.

Determinism is not the same thing as predeterminism.

Though if I understand right, I'm seeing no differentiation between predeterminism and fatalaism.

For the record, I created an instance of a deterministic system in mathematical isolation, and I don't know what's going to happen and the things that are going to happen are a chaotic numerical projection from a seed: the whole point is that I didn't  predetermine anything about the system, the system just determined it. I may have foreknowledge of how the determinism goes, but that doesn't mean it is  predetermined.

For something to be  pre determined, it has to actually be stated at the beginning. It was  predetermined there would be 12 "volcanoes". It was determined by course that one of those volcanoes would be located at 300,345 of the global topology.

It was   predetermined that the words "The" "Firey" and "Tooth" would be valid name segments. It was determined by course that the system select this combination of all the possible combinations across all possible seeds (which increases when one varies the RNG as a part of seed function) as the name for that mountain in this function.

I would hope that this absolutely clarifies that there is a difference between determinism and predetermination.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

So you don't assume a first cause. Ok. one thing I am not seeing is actual evidence that determinism is correct, rather than things being probabilistic. There are many varieties of QM that are not deterministic. If everything is deterministic, there is no such thing as actual choice, because your 'choices' are preprogramed and predetermined.

An "actual" choice is the output of a choosing process. Choosing inputs two or more options, applies some criteria of comparative evaluation, and outputs a single choice. We can observe choosing actually happening in a restaurant. The customer walks in, sits at a table, browses the menu, and tells the waiter what they will have for dinner. The multiple options on the menu have been reduced, by selection, to a single dinner order. Thus we know that choosing actually happened and that the dinner order is an actual choice.

But, was the choosing "deterministic"? I don't know. Let's ask the customer. "Sir, can you tell us why you ordered the Chef Salad?". "Sure. When I saw the juicy steak dinner, I considered ordering that. But then I remembered that I had bacon and eggs for breakfast and a double cheeseburger for lunch. My doctor had advised me that I needed to eat more fruits and vegetables. So, I decided that the salad would be a better choice for dinner tonight." Just to be sure, we ask, "So those reasons caused you to order the Chef Salad?" "Yes", he says, "I could have ordered the steak, but I decided I would order the salad instead."

So, it appears the choice was deterministic: Given those circumstances, he only would have ordered the salad, even though he could have ordered the steak. We did not observe him flipping a coin to make this decision, so we have no reason to suspect the choice was "probabilistic".

Another thing we did not see is any choosing happening prior to the customer opening the menu. The choice was not "preprogrammed" or "predetermined", but rather the choosing happened right there in front of us, in that specific place, and at that specific time.

Could we have predicted his choice in advance? Well, theoretically, yes. If we knew what he had for breakfast and lunch, and we knew his dietary goal for each day was to have more vegetables, then we might very well have predicted that he would order the salad for dinner. But our prediction would not be the cause of his choice. His own choosing would still be the cause.

We also may note that past events reliably led him to that choice. His doctor's recommendation to eat more fruits and vegetables, and his prior choices that day, reliably led him to choosing the salad for dinner, even though he could have had the steak instead.

 

[ramoss]

So you don't assume a first cause. Ok. one thing I am not seeing is actual evidence that determinism is correct, rather than things being probabilistic. There are many varieties of QM that are not deterministic. If everything is deterministic, there is no such thing as actual choice, because your 'choices' are preprogramed and predetermined.

An "actual" choice is the output of a choosing process. Choosing inputs two or more options, applies some criteria of comparative evaluation, and outputs a single choice. We can observe choosing actually happening in a restaurant. The customer walks in, sits at a table, browses the menu, and tells the waiter what they will have for dinner. The multiple options on the menu have been reduced, by selection, to a single dinner order. Thus we know that choosing actually happened and that the dinner order is an actual choice.

But, was the choosing "deterministic"? I don't know. Let's ask the customer. "Sir, can you tell us why you ordered the Chef Salad?". "Sure. When I saw the juicy steak dinner, I considered ordering that. But then I remembered that I had bacon and eggs for breakfast and a double cheeseburger for lunch. My doctor had advised me that I needed to eat more fruits and vegetables. So, I decided that the salad would be a better choice for dinner tonight." Just to be sure, we ask, "So those reasons caused you to order the Chef Salad?" "Yes", he says, "I could have ordered the steak, but I decided I would order the salad instead."

So, it appears the choice was deterministic: Given those circumstances, he only would have ordered the salad, even though he could have ordered the steak. We did not observe him flipping a coin to make this decision, so we have no reason to suspect the choice was "probabilistic".

Another thing we did not see is any choosing happening prior to the customer opening the menu. The choice was not "preprogrammed" or "predetermined", but rather the choosing happened right there in front of us, in that specific place, and at that specific time.

Could we have predicted his choice in advance? Well, theoretically, yes. If we knew what he had for breakfast and lunch, and we knew his dietary goal for each day was to have more vegetables, then we might very well have predicted that he would order the salad for dinner. But our prediction would not be the cause of his choice. His own choosing would still be the cause.

We also may note that past events reliably led him to that choice. His doctor's recommendation to eat more fruits and vegetables, and his prior choices that day, reliably led him to choosing the salad for dinner, even though he could have had the steak instead.

What is the 'act of choosing' then becomes the question. It's the interactions of the biochemsitry ot the brain with the external sources, and if things are deterministic, the outcome of that choice is determined before the choice was even presented. If that is the case (it's a deterministic system), the choice is about the same as a rock choosing to fall when you release it

 

[SIB]

You make claims, but,do your claims match reality? Conceptually, the concept of soft determinism is flawed. It can not explain how you can things can be deterministic, but you have choice at the same time. Your syllogism can not be shown to be either valid or sound.

Thats the end of the discussion for me.

List what people are saying and see how well they match observations. And do they have a explanation, mechanism, and make repeatable predictions. Ones that have them are more reliable than those that don't.

Those that do, we talk about how we assigned weights and/or a sliding scale.

Why, let's look at it. Let's see you determine when an individual atom decays. Show a way to do that.

THere isn't. That means that it is not deterministic, but probabilistic. Therefore, determinism is flawed.

Here is an article that points out the flaws

Three Arguments Against Determinism - Greg Boyd - ReKnew

There was an interesting article in the NY Times yesterday by John Tierney entitled “Do You Have Free Will? Yes, It’s The Only Choice.” The article reviews research that suggests that everybody intuitively believes people are morally responsible only for actions they could have refrained from...

reknew.org

Determinism is just something I really can't get a grip on. If we know every single state of every single thing that is interacting then determinism seems plausible. If we can't know every single state of every thing involved in the out come then the determistic outcome is in question.

In nuclear decay they use half life. But if we knew the state(s) of all the all the fields and forces involved could we narrow what atoms are going to decay?

Today, we can't. So for now, I accept the illusion of free will. Better stated as "my brain can make some choices.", I hope. Maybe its totally based on blind faith for me.

I really just don't. I do know, if I write down what a person or a "thing" does for month, and I am honest about it, I can predict their near future to a fair degree. Thats the best i can do.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

What is the 'act of choosing' then becomes the question. It's the interactions of the biochemistry of the brain with the external sources, and if things are deterministic, the outcome of that choice is determined before the choice was even presented. If that is the case (it's a deterministic system), the choice is about the same as a rock choosing to fall when you release it

Well, as long as it is specifically the biochemistry of the customer's own brain, that is interacting with the restaurant menu, and comparing the options and making the choice, then nothing has really changed from the original scenario. The brain organizes sensory input into a symbolic model of reality consisting of objects (such as the menu, the options, the choice), operational concepts (such as "can" and "will", "actuality" and "possibility", etc.) and all the other things that we consider necessary to describe, both to ourselves and others, what is going on. The brain is not sufficiently large to track the specific neural interactions. The brain is incapable of describing reality in terms of the atoms and atomic events within itself. So, that brings us back to the macro descriptions of what is going on in macro reality.

We may determine/know in advance the likely outcomes of a given set of events. However, it is impossible to determine/cause an event to happen before it's final prior causes have played themselves out. So, "predetermination" can only logically refer to prediction, but never to causation. If something actually happened in advance, it would collide with the events that were already happening. And nobody wants to clean up that mess.

If we assume that all systems are deterministic, how do we distinguish our behavior from that of a rock? Well, it turns out that when matter is organized differently it can behave differently. Inanimate objects, like the rock, are entirely governed by physical forces, like gravity. Place a bowling ball on a slope and it will always roll downhill. But biological organisms are governed by biological drives to survive, thrive, and reproduce. While still "affected" by by physical forces, they are no longer "governed" by them. Place a squirrel on that same slope and he may go uphill, downhill, or in any other direction where he hopes to find his next acorn. And at the next level of organization we get intelligent species, with a highly evolved brain capable of imagination, evaluation, and choosing. While still affected by physical forces and biological drives, intelligent species are no longer governed by them. Intelligent species get to choose when, where, and how they will go about satisfying their biological drives. And this is where free will pokes up its head in a deterministic universe.

So, while the behavior of all objects may be reliably caused, the nature of the primary causal mechanism may be radically different. And that is how we distinguish between the customer in the restaurant and a rock. The customer gets to choose for himself what he will have for dinner. The rock must do whatever gravity "chooses" for it.

 

[ramoss]

You make claims, but,do your claims match reality? Conceptually, the concept of soft determinism is flawed. It can not explain how you can things can be deterministic, but you have choice at the same time. Your syllogism can not be shown to be either valid or sound.

Thats the end of the discussion for me.

List what people are saying and see how well they match observations. And do they have a explanation, mechanism, and make repeatable predictions. Ones that have them are more reliable than those that don't.

Those that do, we talk about how we assigned weights and/or a sliding scale.

Why, let's look at it. Let's see you determine when an individual atom decays. Show a way to do that.

THere isn't. That means that it is not deterministic, but probabilistic. Therefore, determinism is flawed.

Here is an article that points out the flaws

Three Arguments Against Determinism - Greg Boyd - ReKnew

There was an interesting article in the NY Times yesterday by John Tierney entitled “Do You Have Free Will? Yes, It’s The Only Choice.” The article reviews research that suggests that everybody intuitively believes people are morally responsible only for actions they could have refrained from...

reknew.org

Determinism is just something I really can't get a grip on. If we know every single state of every single thing that is interacting then determinism seems plausible. If we can't know every single state of every thing involved in the out come then the determistic outcome is in question.

In nuclear decay they use half life. But if we knew the state(s) of all the all the fields and forces involved could we narrow what atoms are going to decay?

Today, we can't. So for now, I accept the illusion of free will. Better stated as "my brain can make some choices.", I hope. Maybe its totally based on blind faith for me.

I really just don't. I do know, if I write down what a person or a "thing" does for month, and I am honest about it, I can predict their near future to a fair degree. Thats the best i can do.

Part of the problem I have with both determinism and in determinism is that, well, currently, it doesn't seem testable. When talking about the philosophy of that and choice, I can say it look like incompatiablism is internally contradictory from a logical standpoint.

 

[Jarhyn]

You make claims, but,do your claims match reality? Conceptually, the concept of soft determinism is flawed. It can not explain how you can things can be deterministic, but you have choice at the same time. Your syllogism can not be shown to be either valid or sound.

Thats the end of the discussion for me.

List what people are saying and see how well they match observations. And do they have a explanation, mechanism, and make repeatable predictions. Ones that have them are more reliable than those that don't.

Those that do, we talk about how we assigned weights and/or a sliding scale.

Why, let's look at it. Let's see you determine when an individual atom decays. Show a way to do that.

THere isn't. That means that it is not deterministic, but probabilistic. Therefore, determinism is flawed.

Here is an article that points out the flaws

Three Arguments Against Determinism - Greg Boyd - ReKnew

There was an interesting article in the NY Times yesterday by John Tierney entitled “Do You Have Free Will? Yes, It’s The Only Choice.” The article reviews research that suggests that everybody intuitively believes people are morally responsible only for actions they could have refrained from...

reknew.org

Determinism is just something I really can't get a grip on. If we know every single state of every single thing that is interacting then determinism seems plausible. If we can't know every single state of every thing involved in the out come then the determistic outcome is in question.

In nuclear decay they use half life. But if we knew the state(s) of all the all the fields and forces involved could we narrow what atoms are going to decay?

Today, we can't. So for now, I accept the illusion of free will. Better stated as "my brain can make some choices.", I hope. Maybe its totally based on blind faith for me.

I really just don't. I do know, if I write down what a person or a "thing" does for month, and I am honest about it, I can predict their near future to a fair degree. Thats the best i can do.

Part of the problem I have with both determinism and in determinism is that, well, currently, it doesn't seem testable. When talking about the philosophy of that and choice, I can say it look like incompatiablism is internally contradictory from a logical standpoint.

Oh it's absolutely testable. You just need a simulation set up with objects which have choice functions which operate upon scripts which are assembled to fulfill requirements enforced on the objects (there is a commutative property available here, wherein the requirement may be selected before or after the will), and in which such assembled wills may fail for some reason or another.

That's why I bring up Dwarf Fortress: it satisfies the above, and allows testing on the concepts.

 

[SIB]

Part of the problem I have with both determinism and in determinism is that, well, currently, it doesn't seem testable. When talking about the philosophy of that and choice, I can say it look like incompatiablism is internally contradictory from a logical standpoint.

Oh it's absolutely testable. You just need a simulation set up with objects which have choice functions which operate upon scripts which are assembled to fulfill requirements enforced on the objects (there is a commutative property available here, wherein the requirement may be selected before or after the will), and in which such assembled wills may fail for some reason or another.

That's why I bring up Dwarf Fortress: it satisfies the above, and allows testing on the concepts.

To me, we have to be careful with math expressions. I could write a simulation where I only go half way to the door and never reach it. I hope one would realize that we shouldn't test that by running as fast as we can toward one.

I don't think its testable yet because we don't know enough. We don't even know if space time is fundamental let alone what it is or the the what the rest of the universe is. A simulation will be adjusted based on how well it matches observation. You could put a "pink unicorn subroutine", or in this case a Dwarf Fortress unicorn, in a simulation to make that happen.

So the dwarf fortress will be missing about 95% of what is needed. Assuming their estimates on what the universe is correct that is. To me, the determinate side of the debate could say the "commutative property" is just adding so many "determined" events that it becomes too complicated to predict and the illusion of "indeterminate" may arise.

 

[Jarhyn]

Part of the problem I have with both determinism and in determinism is that, well, currently, it doesn't seem testable. When talking about the philosophy of that and choice, I can say it look like incompatiablism is internally contradictory from a logical standpoint.

Oh it's absolutely testable. You just need a simulation set up with objects which have choice functions which operate upon scripts which are assembled to fulfill requirements enforced on the objects (there is a commutative property available here, wherein the requirement may be selected before or after the will), and in which such assembled wills may fail for some reason or another.

That's why I bring up Dwarf Fortress: it satisfies the above, and allows testing on the concepts.

To me, we have to be careful with math expressions. I could write a simulation where I only go half way to the door and never reach it. I hope one would realize that we shouldn't test that by running as fast as we can toward one.

I don't think its testable yet because we don't know enough. We don't even know if space time is fundamental let alone what it is or the the what the rest of the universe is. A simulation will be adjusted based on how well it matches observation. You could put a "pink unicorn subroutine", or in this case a Dwarf Fortress unicorn, in a simulation to make that happen.

So the dwarf fortress will be missing about 95% of what is needed. Assuming their estimates on what the universe is correct that is. To me, the determinate side of the debate could say the "commutative property" is just adding so many "determined" events that it becomes too complicated to predict and the illusion of "indeterminate" may arise.

No, it really isn't.

The one thing simulation does, in fact, is provide proof by example: to disprove the contra.

It comes down to understanding what is being disproven: "there may be no choice, freedom, or will within or describable of deterministic systems".

Dwarf fortress is a deterministic system in mathematical isolation.

Dwarf Fortress carries entities that make decisions on the basis of personality and requirements, wherein one requirement is chosen from a set of requirements. This satisfies choice: selection of one from many by any process.

From that requirement a fully deterministic process assembled series of actions which, IF they are performed MAY satisfy the requirement. This satisfies will: a series of instructions to actions unto a requirement.

The fact that the dwarves may and often do satisfy a mathematical definition of failure to satisfy the requirements and also a mathematical definition in which sometimes they do not fail the requirement then completes the loop to Freedom: the binary qualitative state of having met or not met the requirement

I just have to provide a single example of A deterministic system which satisfies each of these in a situation that does not exclude satisfaction of the others to disprove hard determinism and thus prove compatibilism as a valid concept.

And look at that... I did.

In some respects this comes down to the fact that determinism is the assertion that the universe is a deterministic system. Hard Determinism says that free will is not possible on the specific basis that they declare our existence to be a deterministic system.
They say in so many words "deterministic systems cannot possibly..." And so if I can display a deterministic system not just can possibly, but actually doing these things in mathematical isolation, then that throws out that whole concept of "deterministic systems cannot possibly..."
The fact is, hard determinism exists in the inability to discern can't from won't.

 

[SIB]

Part of the problem I have with both determinism and in determinism is that, well, currently, it doesn't seem testable. When talking about the philosophy of that and choice, I can say it look like incompatiablism is internally contradictory from a logical standpoint.

Oh it's absolutely testable. You just need a simulation set up with objects which have choice functions which operate upon scripts which are assembled to fulfill requirements enforced on the objects (there is a commutative property available here, wherein the requirement may be selected before or after the will), and in which such assembled wills may fail for some reason or another.

That's why I bring up Dwarf Fortress: it satisfies the above, and allows testing on the concepts.

To me, we have to be careful with math expressions. I could write a simulation where I only go half way to the door and never reach it. I hope one would realize that we shouldn't test that by running as fast as we can toward one.

I don't think its testable yet because we don't know enough. We don't even know if space time is fundamental let alone what it is or the the what the rest of the universe is. A simulation will be adjusted based on how well it matches observation. You could put a "pink unicorn subroutine", or in this case a Dwarf Fortress unicorn, in a simulation to make that happen.

So the dwarf fortress will be missing about 95% of what is needed. Assuming their estimates on what the universe is correct that is. To me, the determinate side of the debate could say the "commutative property" is just adding so many "determined" events that it becomes too complicated to predict and the illusion of "indeterminate" may arise.

No, it really isn't.

The one thing simulation does, in fact, is provide proof by example: to disprove the contra.

It comes down to understanding what is being disproven: "there may be no choice, freedom, or will within or describable of deterministic systems".

Dwarf fortress is a deterministic system in mathematical isolation.

Dwarf Fortress carries entities that make decisions on the basis of personality and requirements, wherein one requirement is chosen from a set of requirements. This satisfies choice: selection of one from many by any process.

From that requirement a fully deterministic process assembled series of actions which, IF they are performed MAY satisfy the requirement. This satisfies will: a series of instructions to actions unto a requirement.

The fact that the dwarves may and often do satisfy a mathematical definition of failure to satisfy the requirements and also a mathematical definition in which sometimes they do not fail the requirement then completes the loop to Freedom: the binary qualitative state of having met or not met the requirement

I just have to provide a single example of A deterministic system which satisfies each of these in a situation that does not exclude satisfaction of the others to disprove hard determinism and thus prove compatibilism as a valid concept.

And look at that... I did.

In some respects this comes down to the fact that determinism is the assertion that the universe is a deterministic system. Hard Determinism says that free will is not possible on the specific basis that they declare our existence to be a deterministic system.
They say in so many words "deterministic systems cannot possibly..." And so if I can display a deterministic system not just can possibly, but actually doing these things in mathematical isolation, then that throws out that whole concept of "deterministic systems cannot possibly..."
The fact is, hard determinism exists in the inability to discern can't from won't.

Yeah, you have shown a deterministic system. I agree to that. Like I drop a rock over your toe proves it. And most people understand deterministic in the near future.

Sim's are useful, no doubt. They can do a lot for us. But we are missing a lot of data points to represent reality, the way it is. The sim represent how we set it up and adjust it. I also see the program as totally deterministic. Any program. Its totally dependent on the program. If we knew what was going to influence the program, like a stray cosmic ray shower, we can predict the out come.

Heck, another line of ,logic to support your claim as I see it anyway, how sure are we that "random number generators" are really that?

For me that is. But I don't know what I don't know here, so that is what is.

 

[Jarhyn]

Part of the problem I have with both determinism and in determinism is that, well, currently, it doesn't seem testable. When talking about the philosophy of that and choice, I can say it look like incompatiablism is internally contradictory from a logical standpoint.

Oh it's absolutely testable. You just need a simulation set up with objects which have choice functions which operate upon scripts which are assembled to fulfill requirements enforced on the objects (there is a commutative property available here, wherein the requirement may be selected before or after the will), and in which such assembled wills may fail for some reason or another.

That's why I bring up Dwarf Fortress: it satisfies the above, and allows testing on the concepts.

To me, we have to be careful with math expressions. I could write a simulation where I only go half way to the door and never reach it. I hope one would realize that we shouldn't test that by running as fast as we can toward one.

I don't think its testable yet because we don't know enough. We don't even know if space time is fundamental let alone what it is or the the what the rest of the universe is. A simulation will be adjusted based on how well it matches observation. You could put a "pink unicorn subroutine", or in this case a Dwarf Fortress unicorn, in a simulation to make that happen.

So the dwarf fortress will be missing about 95% of what is needed. Assuming their estimates on what the universe is correct that is. To me, the determinate side of the debate could say the "commutative property" is just adding so many "determined" events that it becomes too complicated to predict and the illusion of "indeterminate" may arise.

No, it really isn't.

The one thing simulation does, in fact, is provide proof by example: to disprove the contra.

It comes down to understanding what is being disproven: "there may be no choice, freedom, or will within or describable of deterministic systems".

Dwarf fortress is a deterministic system in mathematical isolation.

Dwarf Fortress carries entities that make decisions on the basis of personality and requirements, wherein one requirement is chosen from a set of requirements. This satisfies choice: selection of one from many by any process.

From that requirement a fully deterministic process assembled series of actions which, IF they are performed MAY satisfy the requirement. This satisfies will: a series of instructions to actions unto a requirement.

The fact that the dwarves may and often do satisfy a mathematical definition of failure to satisfy the requirements and also a mathematical definition in which sometimes they do not fail the requirement then completes the loop to Freedom: the binary qualitative state of having met or not met the requirement

I just have to provide a single example of A deterministic system which satisfies each of these in a situation that does not exclude satisfaction of the others to disprove hard determinism and thus prove compatibilism as a valid concept.

And look at that... I did.

In some respects this comes down to the fact that determinism is the assertion that the universe is a deterministic system. Hard Determinism says that free will is not possible on the specific basis that they declare our existence to be a deterministic system.
They say in so many words "deterministic systems cannot possibly..." And so if I can display a deterministic system not just can possibly, but actually doing these things in mathematical isolation, then that throws out that whole concept of "deterministic systems cannot possibly..."
The fact is, hard determinism exists in the inability to discern can't from won't.

Yeah, you have shown a deterministic system. I agree to that. Like I drop a rock over your toe proves it. And most people understand deterministic in the near future.

Sim's are useful, no doubt. They can do a lot for us. But we are missing a lot of data points to represent reality, the way it is. The sim represent how we set it up and adjust it. I also see the program as totally deterministic. Any program. Its totally dependent on the program. If we knew what was going to influence the program, like a stray cosmic ray shower, we can predict the out come.

Heck, another line of ,logic to support your claim as I see it anyway, how sure are we that "random number generators" are really that?

For me that is. But I don't know what I don't know here, so that is what is.

My point is that regardless of whether reality is a Deterministic System, I have supported that "deterministic systems can do that".

Also, ironically enough, because that deterministic system I show you in mathematical isolation is implemented eminently in our reality, our reality MUST allow these operations within it, because there they are happening in our reality.

So we have at the very least maintained that compatibilist choice, will, and freedom all are proven as sensible in deterministic systems and in our universe. This leaves the Hard Determinist with exactly one fallback, and a position that is only defensible with just-so arguments: "it can possibly happen as such in our universe but we, just-so as we are, don't operate that way."

Whether you want to argue some other more whimsical ability to choose not merely between hypothetical realities but between whole realities is kind of egregious. You could only do that if you were literally god:

I can choose between the reality where Urist encounters a locked door, and the reality where Urist encounters an unlocked door. I can choose between the reality where Urist chooses for himself what he will do and where I shove a thought into Urist's head of what to do.

Urist doesn't need that power to choose for himself, and I'm not so much of a solipsist that I would want that to be how the universe functioned. The universe only functions that way for crazy people and gods.

 

[SIB]

Part of the problem I have with both determinism and in determinism is that, well, currently, it doesn't seem testable. When talking about the philosophy of that and choice, I can say it look like incompatiablism is internally contradictory from a logical standpoint.

Oh it's absolutely testable. You just need a simulation set up with objects which have choice functions which operate upon scripts which are assembled to fulfill requirements enforced on the objects (there is a commutative property available here, wherein the requirement may be selected before or after the will), and in which such assembled wills may fail for some reason or another.

That's why I bring up Dwarf Fortress: it satisfies the above, and allows testing on the concepts.

To me, we have to be careful with math expressions. I could write a simulation where I only go half way to the door and never reach it. I hope one would realize that we shouldn't test that by running as fast as we can toward one.

I don't think its testable yet because we don't know enough. We don't even know if space time is fundamental let alone what it is or the the what the rest of the universe is. A simulation will be adjusted based on how well it matches observation. You could put a "pink unicorn subroutine", or in this case a Dwarf Fortress unicorn, in a simulation to make that happen.

So the dwarf fortress will be missing about 95% of what is needed. Assuming their estimates on what the universe is correct that is. To me, the determinate side of the debate could say the "commutative property" is just adding so many "determined" events that it becomes too complicated to predict and the illusion of "indeterminate" may arise.

No, it really isn't.

The one thing simulation does, in fact, is provide proof by example: to disprove the contra.

It comes down to understanding what is being disproven: "there may be no choice, freedom, or will within or describable of deterministic systems".

Dwarf fortress is a deterministic system in mathematical isolation.

Dwarf Fortress carries entities that make decisions on the basis of personality and requirements, wherein one requirement is chosen from a set of requirements. This satisfies choice: selection of one from many by any process.

From that requirement a fully deterministic process assembled series of actions which, IF they are performed MAY satisfy the requirement. This satisfies will: a series of instructions to actions unto a requirement.

The fact that the dwarves may and often do satisfy a mathematical definition of failure to satisfy the requirements and also a mathematical definition in which sometimes they do not fail the requirement then completes the loop to Freedom: the binary qualitative state of having met or not met the requirement

I just have to provide a single example of A deterministic system which satisfies each of these in a situation that does not exclude satisfaction of the others to disprove hard determinism and thus prove compatibilism as a valid concept.

And look at that... I did.

In some respects this comes down to the fact that determinism is the assertion that the universe is a deterministic system. Hard Determinism says that free will is not possible on the specific basis that they declare our existence to be a deterministic system.
They say in so many words "deterministic systems cannot possibly..." And so if I can display a deterministic system not just can possibly, but actually doing these things in mathematical isolation, then that throws out that whole concept of "deterministic systems cannot possibly..."
The fact is, hard determinism exists in the inability to discern can't from won't.

Yeah, you have shown a deterministic system. I agree to that. Like I drop a rock over your toe proves it. And most people understand deterministic in the near future.

Sim's are useful, no doubt. They can do a lot for us. But we are missing a lot of data points to represent reality, the way it is. The sim represent how we set it up and adjust it. I also see the program as totally deterministic. Any program. Its totally dependent on the program. If we knew what was going to influence the program, like a stray cosmic ray shower, we can predict the out come.

Heck, another line of ,logic to support your claim as I see it anyway, how sure are we that "random number generators" are really that?

For me that is. But I don't know what I don't know here, so that is what is.

My point is that regardless of whether reality is a Deterministic System, I have supported that "deterministic systems can do that".

Also, ironically enough, because that deterministic system I show you in mathematical isolation is implemented eminently in our reality, our reality MUST allow these operations within it, because there they are happening in our reality.

So we have at the very least maintained that compatibilist choice, will, and freedom all are proven as sensible in deterministic systems and in our universe. This leaves the Hard Determinist with exactly one fallback, and a position that is only defensible with just-so arguments: "it can possibly happen as such in our universe but we, just-so as we are, don't operate that way."

Whether you want to argue some other more whimsical ability to choose not merely between hypothetical realities but between whole realities is kind of egregious. You could only do that if you were literally god:

I can choose between the reality where Urist encounters a locked door, and the reality where Urist encounters an unlocked door. I can choose between the reality where Urist chooses for himself what he will do and where I shove a thought into Urist's head of what to do.

Urist doesn't need that power to choose for himself, and I'm not so much of a solipsist that I would want that to be how the universe functioned. The universe only functions that way for crazy people and gods.

well, yes, a deterministic sub set can do that. Especially when we wrote the program to show it. And you are right again, everything we do is allowed in the system we are in. Heck, the system is quantum computing you right now. And when we know what spacetime is, it might even be more deterministic looking.

So I lean toward toward deterministic, at least in the near future. But I am ok with the illusion that I am in some control ... just makes this life a tad easier.

 

[ramoss]

well, yes, a deterministic sub set can do that. Especially when we wrote the program to show it. And you are right again, everything we do is allowed in the system we are in. Heck, the system is quantum computing you right now. And when we know what spacetime is, it might even be more deterministic looking.

So I lean toward toward deterministic, at least in the near future. But I am ok with the illusion that I am in some control ... just makes this life a tad easier.

Well, you do not have a choice but to think you have some control.

 

[Jarhyn]

well, yes, a deterministic sub set can do that. Especially when we wrote the program to show it. And you are right again, everything we do is allowed in the system we are in. Heck, the system is quantum computing you right now. And when we know what spacetime is, it might even be more deterministic looking.

So I lean toward toward deterministic, at least in the near future. But I am ok with the illusion that I am in some control ... just makes this life a tad easier.

Well, you do not have a choice but to think you have some control.

The point is, you do have a choice, and identifiably so, because determinism allows choice, it just doesn't allow "choosing both to X and not-X", but nobody except the egregious tantrum thrower will throw that tantrum over not being able to do both.

Just because you do have to actually choose and live with your choice does not in any way mean you lacked a choice in the first place.

You could, if you decided to do so, so some thing, and you will have always in that moment, had that choice available to you, and you would always inevitably choose not to.

You not doing so is purely a function of your choice and no other extension.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

well, yes, a deterministic sub set can do that. Especially when we wrote the program to show it. And you are right again, everything we do is allowed in the system we are in. Heck, the system is quantum computing you right now. And when we know what spacetime is, it might even be more deterministic looking.

So I lean toward toward deterministic, at least in the near future. But I am ok with the illusion that I am in some control ... just makes this life a tad easier.

Well, you do not have a choice but to think you have some control.

One notion of control that I like is this: "that which chooses what happens next is exercising control". And while our choices and actions may be deterministically inevitable, it cannot be said that anything other than us is choosing which tie to wear, or what to have for breakfast. So, we are actually exercising control over what happens next.

The general system of causation (that led to us being "who and what we are" at the point of our choosing) is not something with a brain that is choosing what we will do. So we cannot say that the web or chain of causes prior to us are exercising control. They result in us, but they cannot choose for us. We are still the single object in the entire physical universe that is choosing pancakes instead of scrambled eggs.

 

[ramoss]

well, yes, a deterministic sub set can do that. Especially when we wrote the program to show it. And you are right again, everything we do is allowed in the system we are in. Heck, the system is quantum computing you right now. And when we know what spacetime is, it might even be more deterministic looking.

So I lean toward toward deterministic, at least in the near future. But I am ok with the illusion that I am in some control ... just makes this life a tad easier.

Well, you do not have a choice but to think you have some control.

One notion of control that I like is this: "that which chooses what happens next is exercising control". And while our choices and actions may be deterministically inevitable, it cannot be said that anything other than us is choosing which tie to wear, or what to have for breakfast. So, we are actually exercising control over what happens next.

The general system of causation (that led to us being "who and what we are" at the point of our choosing) is not something with a brain that is choosing what we will do. So we cannot say that the web or chain of causes prior to us are exercising control. They result in us, but they cannot choose for us. We are still the single object in the entire physical universe that is choosing pancakes instead of scrambled eggs.

That claim is exactly what I dispute. You are making the assumption that you have a 'choice', but if if the choice is predetermined due to determinism, then you have no choice but to go in the direction you think you are choosing.

 

[Jarhyn]

well, yes, a deterministic sub set can do that. Especially when we wrote the program to show it. And you are right again, everything we do is allowed in the system we are in. Heck, the system is quantum computing you right now. And when we know what spacetime is, it might even be more deterministic looking.

So I lean toward toward deterministic, at least in the near future. But I am ok with the illusion that I am in some control ... just makes this life a tad easier.

Well, you do not have a choice but to think you have some control.

One notion of control that I like is this: "that which chooses what happens next is exercising control". And while our choices and actions may be deterministically inevitable, it cannot be said that anything other than us is choosing which tie to wear, or what to have for breakfast. So, we are actually exercising control over what happens next.

The general system of causation (that led to us being "who and what we are" at the point of our choosing) is not something with a brain that is choosing what we will do. So we cannot say that the web or chain of causes prior to us are exercising control. They result in us, but they cannot choose for us. We are still the single object in the entire physical universe that is choosing pancakes instead of scrambled eggs.

That claim is exactly what I dispute. You are making the assumption that you have a 'choice', but if if the choice is predetermined due to determinism, then you have no choice but to go in the direction you think you are choosing.

You are conflating "choice" definitions here. You are asserting a desire to choose free of process. Marvin is asserting an ability to choose VIA process.

The fact that POP on STACK always chooses the first element does not make it any less a choice on the stack.

It is deterministic and also a choice.

Having a rubric on which the function chooses from it's input set does not invalidate the choice of it, it just means the choice happens as a function of process.

 

[pood]

That claim is exactly what I dispute. You are making the assumption that you have a 'choice', but if if the choice is predetermined due to determinism, then you have no choice but to go in the direction you think you are choosing.

As noted earlier, determinism is not the same thing as predeterminism.