Demystifying Determinism

[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.

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.

No, I mean what I say. If what you are going to do is predetermined, there is no choice. You can not do except what you are predestined to do.

 

[SIB]

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.

Yes, it does. to a degree.

It depends on the state of the machine. It allows a "choice" in some things. For example Something you don't really care about or you are just not sure what to do. There is nothing setting up the dominos so to speak so you make the choice in the last few "whatever seconds". And anything can come along and offer the illusion that you changed your mind. Due to you never really being that locked in.

As you have gain more interest/intent/goal/[whatever] the choices become less available to you. I am not going to go down to my neighbor's and steal his mower. I have no real choice in that based on the current state of the machine that is me.

 

[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.

Yes, it does. to a degree.

It depends on the state of the machine. It allows a "choice" in some things. For example Something you don't really care about or you are just not sure what to do. There is nothing setting up the dominos so to speak so you make the choice in the last few "whatever seconds". And anything can come along and offer the illusion that you changed your mind. Due to you never really being that locked in.

As you have gain more interest/intent/goal/[whatever] the choices become less available to you. I am not going to go down to my neighbor's and steal his mower. I have no real choice in that based on the current state of the machine that is me.

Part of choice is in fact over not just whether you want to do something but how you want to do it.

Consider the fact that I have three ways to meet my appointments tomorrow. I will either bus, Uber, or bike. There is a process that will determine whether I take four wheels or two: temperature. As to whether I bus or Uber, it depends on how long the DMV takes and how much I care in that moment to do one or the other. I already know that some aspects of this choice process are out of my control: I cannot bike if it is hot as a sweaty ballsack* outside. So while I am sure of what I must do, there are two different paths I can take and I must choose between them at some point. And yes, you CAN go and steal your neighbor's mower. There would certainly be consequences, but you could absolutely do it. You just won't because you don't like those consequences. Just because you would never choose to do it does not mean for a single moment you cannot. "you" "can" so long as it is is logically possible to LT up a universe in which "you" "do".

As it is, I can logic up plenty of universes where you do, and they're all utterly hilarious.

*as example of yet another choice, I had a variety of things to say here, but I went with sweaty ballsack because I giggled more when I thought of that particular profanity, the use of which was also a conscious choice.

 

[SIB]

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.

Yes, it does. to a degree.

It depends on the state of the machine. It allows a "choice" in some things. For example Something you don't really care about or you are just not sure what to do. There is nothing setting up the dominos so to speak so you make the choice in the last few "whatever seconds". And anything can come along and offer the illusion that you changed your mind. Due to you never really being that locked in.

As you have gain more interest/intent/goal/[whatever] the choices become less available to you. I am not going to go down to my neighbor's and steal his mower. I have no real choice in that based on the current state of the machine that is me.

Part of choice is in fact over not just whether you want to do something but how you want to do it.

Consider the fact that I have three ways to meet my appointments tomorrow. I will either bus, Uber, or bike. There is a process that will determine whether I take four wheels or two: temperature. As to whether I bus or Uber, it depends on how long the DMV takes and how much I care in that moment to do one or the other. I already know that some aspects of this choice process are out of my control: I cannot bike if it is hot as a sweaty ballsack* outside. So while I am sure of what I must do, there are two different paths I can take and I must choose between them at some point. And yes, you CAN go and steal your neighbor's mower. There would certainly be consequences, but you could absolutely do it. You just won't because you don't like those consequences. Just because you would never choose to do it does not mean for a single moment you cannot. "you" "can" so long as it is is logically possible to LT up a universe in which "you" "do".

As it is, I can logic up plenty of universes where you do, and they're all utterly hilarious.

*as example of yet another choice, I had a variety of things to say here, but I went with sweaty ballsack because I giggled more when I thought of that particular profanity, the use of which was also a conscious choice.

yes, I agree with ya.

As we add more degrees of freedom the illusion becomes more real to us. We can add any number of ways to make a deterministic choice look like "I have free will".

You may have the choices available to you where you can drive, bus, or pedal. And you may not care which one you do for tomorrow. But if its going to stormy and nasty outside and you need to wear a suit, driving becomes more locked in. Unless, of course, you want to prove to yourself that you actually made the choice so you choose not that.

B

 

[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.

Yes, it does. to a degree.

It depends on the state of the machine. It allows a "choice" in some things. For example Something you don't really care about or you are just not sure what to do. There is nothing setting up the dominos so to speak so you make the choice in the last few "whatever seconds". And anything can come along and offer the illusion that you changed your mind. Due to you never really being that locked in.

As you have gain more interest/intent/goal/[whatever] the choices become less available to you. I am not going to go down to my neighbor's and steal his mower. I have no real choice in that based on the current state of the machine that is me.

Part of choice is in fact over not just whether you want to do something but how you want to do it.

Consider the fact that I have three ways to meet my appointments tomorrow. I will either bus, Uber, or bike. There is a process that will determine whether I take four wheels or two: temperature. As to whether I bus or Uber, it depends on how long the DMV takes and how much I care in that moment to do one or the other. I already know that some aspects of this choice process are out of my control: I cannot bike if it is hot as a sweaty ballsack* outside. So while I am sure of what I must do, there are two different paths I can take and I must choose between them at some point. And yes, you CAN go and steal your neighbor's mower. There would certainly be consequences, but you could absolutely do it. You just won't because you don't like those consequences. Just because you would never choose to do it does not mean for a single moment you cannot. "you" "can" so long as it is is logically possible to LT up a universe in which "you" "do".

As it is, I can logic up plenty of universes where you do, and they're all utterly hilarious.

*as example of yet another choice, I had a variety of things to say here, but I went with sweaty ballsack because I giggled more when I thought of that particular profanity, the use of which was also a conscious choice.

yes, I agree with ya.

As we add more degrees of freedom the illusion becomes more real to us. We can add any number of ways to make a deterministic choice look like "I have free will".

You may have the choices available to you where you can drive, bus, or pedal. And you may not care which one you do for tomorrow. But if its going to stormy and nasty outside and you need to wear a suit, driving becomes more locked in. Unless, of course, you want to prove to yourself that you actually made the choice so you choose not that.

B

well, the choice was, in fact, made by the object in my head. Different objects in my head would result in different actions. This is a LT extension of our universe, and as shown in the simulation, this kind of extension on the universe is a mathematical object. For every moment in every universe there are extensions on the function, but one of them is the exact function.

Most interestingly, part of the function involves calculating, using the objects of the function itself, a generalization of the object itself that in fact encompasses many of those extensions at the same time mostly because much of the statistical elements can be simplified out by replacing the apparently RNG/Stochastic elements that average out to near-certain probabilities over the time frame we are generally looking at that average out to "macrophysics".

Some things, you are right about. If it is as wet as a sweaty ballsack* out, then I'll most likely take the bus or an Uber.

Pretty much, any situation where the weather is a sweaty ballsack, I think.

I can drive if I accept the consequences of driving without a license. I don't, so while I technically can, I can't without consequence and thus won't. Often this is what someone means when they say "they can't" even though they absolutely can.


*lol, replay value

 

[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.

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.

We cannot say that we have no choice when we literally just made one. Choosing is a physical operation that inputs two or more options, applies some appropriate criteria of comparison, and outputs a single choice. The choice is usually in the form of an "I will X" where X is what we have chosen to do. Having set that intention, the intent then motivates and directs subsequent physical and mental steps needed to satisfy the intent.

Because all of these events, mental and physical, are actually happening in physical reality, we cannot truthfully say that they are not happening. All that determinism can say is that they all inevitably happened, just as they did, and would not happen in any other way.

The question, then, is how did anyone reach the conclusion that choosing didn't "really" happen and that choices were not "really" made.

The answer is by figurative thinking. Since the choice was always inevitable, we think to ourselves, "It is AS IF choosing never happened", and "It is AS IF the choice was already made before we were born", and "It is AS IF there was no choice at all".

Now, figurative thinking and speaking is very common, and we all do it. But figurative statements have one serious drawback: Every figurative statement is literally false.

How can we check to see whether a statement is figurative or literal? We compare it to what actually happened in the real world. And, choosing happened in the real world, there were multiple options to choose from in the real world, and we actually performed that choosing operation ourselves, at that time and at that place.

So, the problem with figurative thinking is that it results in illusions about what is actually going on.

 

[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.

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.

Yes, it does. to a degree.

It depends on the state of the machine. It allows a "choice" in some things. For example Something you don't really care about or you are just not sure what to do. There is nothing setting up the dominos so to speak so you make the choice in the last few "whatever seconds". And anything can come along and offer the illusion that you changed your mind. Due to you never really being that locked in.

As you have gain more interest/intent/goal/[whatever] the choices become less available to you. I am not going to go down to my neighbor's and steal his mower. I have no real choice in that based on the current state of the machine that is me.

No , but that decision is predetermined by conditioning. THe 'choices' might be available, but what is chosen is predetermined to it's merely an illusion there is a choice at all. The illusion of choice is important though.

 

[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.

Yes, it does. to a degree.

It depends on the state of the machine. It allows a "choice" in some things. For example Something you don't really care about or you are just not sure what to do. There is nothing setting up the dominos so to speak so you make the choice in the last few "whatever seconds". And anything can come along and offer the illusion that you changed your mind. Due to you never really being that locked in.

As you have gain more interest/intent/goal/[whatever] the choices become less available to you. I am not going to go down to my neighbor's and steal his mower. I have no real choice in that based on the current state of the machine that is me.

No , but that decision is predetermined by conditioning. THe 'choices' might be available, but what is chosen is predetermined to it's merely an illusion there is a choice at all. The illusion of choice is important though.

No, it is not predetermined. It's just straight up normal "determined by course".

To be predetermined would be that I said "when someone attacks me this way, this reflex shall be trained to primacy".

But even that predetermination was not predetermined itself: it was just determined by course of me exposing myself to some perception of being attacked in that way, slowly at first, then quickly, and then suddenly, each time until the reflex happened the way I wished.

 

[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.

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.

Yes, it does. to a degree.

It depends on the state of the machine. It allows a "choice" in some things. For example Something you don't really care about or you are just not sure what to do. There is nothing setting up the dominos so to speak so you make the choice in the last few "whatever seconds". And anything can come along and offer the illusion that you changed your mind. Due to you never really being that locked in.

As you have gain more interest/intent/goal/[whatever] the choices become less available to you. I am not going to go down to my neighbor's and steal his mower. I have no real choice in that based on the current state of the machine that is me.

No , but that decision is predetermined by conditioning. THe 'choices' might be available, but what is chosen is predetermined to it's merely an illusion there is a choice at all. The illusion of choice is important though.

No, it is not predetermined. It's just straight up normal "determined by course".

To be predetermined would be that I said "when someone attacks me this way, this reflex shall be trained to primacy".

But even that predetermination was not predetermined itself: it was just determined by course of me exposing myself to some perception of being attacked in that way, slowly at first, then quickly, and then suddenly, each time until the reflex happened the way I wished.

it was predetermined you would respond that way.

 

[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.

Yes, it does. to a degree.

It depends on the state of the machine. It allows a "choice" in some things. For example Something you don't really care about or you are just not sure what to do. There is nothing setting up the dominos so to speak so you make the choice in the last few "whatever seconds". And anything can come along and offer the illusion that you changed your mind. Due to you never really being that locked in.

As you have gain more interest/intent/goal/[whatever] the choices become less available to you. I am not going to go down to my neighbor's and steal his mower. I have no real choice in that based on the current state of the machine that is me.

No , but that decision is predetermined by conditioning. THe 'choices' might be available, but what is chosen is predetermined to it's merely an illusion there is a choice at all. The illusion of choice is important though.

No, it is not predetermined. It's just straight up normal "determined by course".

To be predetermined would be that I said "when someone attacks me this way, this reflex shall be trained to primacy".

But even that predetermination was not predetermined itself: it was just determined by course of me exposing myself to some perception of being attacked in that way, slowly at first, then quickly, and then suddenly, each time until the reflex happened the way I wished.

it was predetermined you would respond that way.

If you can establish that it was pre-determined I will be very impressed. Even in my game of Dwarf Fortress I can point to the difference between "predetermined" and "determined by course".

If you have any evidence that it was pre-determined rather than determined by course, please do present it.

 

[fromderinside]

If you can establish that it was pre-determined I will be very impressed. Even in my game of Dwarf Fortress I can point to the difference between "predetermined" and "determined by course".

If you have any evidence that it was pre-determined rather than determined by course, please do present it.

No one ever gets back to those discussing determinism are doing so in the dark. One needs evidence to justify propositions. Evidence depends on there being materiality at the base of propositions. Materiality depends on knowing reality.

My argument is we haven't the basis for discussing reality our world is a subset or unknown connections with materiality because we depend on our senses evolved in the real world depending on the fidelity of how our senses come to be and do which in turn is determined by only whether we survive.

It is a great leap to presume that our senses reflect reality because they came into being by negotiating with our circumstances.

I take a more conservative approach and say our perception depends on the fidelity of how our senses interpret what of material reality they sense.

Our scientific method provides evidence that what comes from something is less that that something from which it arises.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

it was predetermined you would respond that way.

If you have any evidence that it was pre-determined rather than determined by course, please do present it.

The notion of "predetermined" appears to be another one of those AS IF notions.

In the Oxford English Dictionary the verb "predetermine" means:
1. To determine or establish (an outcome, course of events, etc.) in advance; to predestine; to decree or decide upon beforehand; to be a predeterminer of or compelling force for.
2. (with infinitive as object). To resolve or decide in advance to do something.
3. To endow with an antecedent tendency or propensity to something; to incline, impel, or direct beforehand; to predispose. Frequently in passive: to be governed by such a pre-existing tendency. Obsolete.

Many of the examples are explicitly religious (note the "predestine" in the first definition), like
"God: who (hauing predetermined the destruction of Phaaroh) did, by this meanes harden his hart."

So, one might take the non-religious ones, like "Two world wars predetermined the henceforth inevitable symbiosis of scientific activity and political decision", to be figuratively saying that "two world wars made a symbiosis of scientific activity and political activity inevitable, AS IF predetermined by a higher being".

The notion of "some intelligent being's deliberate decision being involved in predetermining" an event would lead me to prefer Jarhyn's "determined by the natural course of events" expression rather than "predetermined to happen" with its baggage of "somebody back then deciding that this would happen now".

For example, even though the Big Bang is in everybody's causal chain, it would be foolish to say that the Big Bang deliberately decided that I would have pancakes instead of eggs for breakfast this morning. I'm pretty sure that this choice was my own and that the Big Bang lacked the equipment needed to deliberately choose anything (a brain).

 

[Jarhyn]

Evidence depends on there being materiality at the base of propositions

This is what you fail to understand: you are proposing something that MUST be true of a whole family of mathematically isolated systems.

Which is to say, all I need is a system which behaves faithfully as mathematically isolated.

Of course, everything we make is material because we live in a material reality, but many things can instantiate mathematically isolated systems among their material.

You cannot back up your claim that determinism does not allow the extension of "could" on a system, because as I've pointed out, I have an immediately accessible mathematically isolated system operating of material not only on which I can calculate the function of "could" exhaustively, for any given subset of the system, but in which I even point out objects holding wills unto requirements.

And of course you also don't seem to understand even as much as others do: that if you have some system operating in mathematical isolation, in our reality, our reality is satisfying, through inheritance, the required forms, much like if I have a bag inside a box inside a bag, I have proven that bags can hold bags, and I'd I can prove of some system that X > Y, and Y > 1, I have proven that X > 1 without needing to know what Y is.

it was predetermined you would respond that way.

If you have any evidence that it was pre-determined rather than determined by course, please do present it.

The notion of "predetermined" appears to be another one of those AS IF notions.

In the Oxford English Dictionary the verb "predetermine" means:
1. To determine or establish (an outcome, course of events, etc.) in advance; to predestine; to decree or decide upon beforehand; to be a predeterminer of or compelling force for.
2. (with infinitive as object). To resolve or decide in advance to do something.
3. To endow with an antecedent tendency or propensity to something; to incline, impel, or direct beforehand; to predispose. Frequently in passive: to be governed by such a pre-existing tendency. Obsolete.

And many of the examples are explicitly religious (note the "predestine" in the first definition), like "God: who (hauing predetermined the destruction of Phaaroh) did, by this meanes harden his hart."

So, one might take the non-religious ones, like "Two world wars predetermined the henceforth inevitable symbiosis of scientific activity and political decision", to be figuratively saying that "two world wars made a symbiosis of scientific activity and political activity inevitable, AS IF predetermined by a higher being".

The notion of some intelligent being's deliberate decision being involved in predetermining an event would lead me to prefer Jarhyn's "determined by the natural course of events" expression rather than "predetermined to happen" with its baggage of "somebody back then decided that this would happen now".

For example, even though the Big Bang is in everybody's causal chain, it would be foolish to say that the Big Bang deliberately decided that I would have pancakes instead of eggs for breakfast this morning.

And this is why the dwarves in fact have free will over a great many things: because there are many things that are not pre-determined. As I said, I pre-determined the number of "volcanoes", sure, but I didn't predetermine that Urist would have a narrow nose and like feathers and sea urchins and utterly hate crabs.

I did in fact predetermine that when the fortress got to a certain numerical sum of "resources" they would start to be attacked by goblin armies seeking their stuff.

This is of course the difference between something I literally chose so that I wouldn't have any leverage to know what would happen, and something I literally chose so that I would have absolute leverage over what happened.

 

[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.

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.

Yes, it does. to a degree.

It depends on the state of the machine. It allows a "choice" in some things. For example Something you don't really care about or you are just not sure what to do. There is nothing setting up the dominos so to speak so you make the choice in the last few "whatever seconds". And anything can come along and offer the illusion that you changed your mind. Due to you never really being that locked in.

As you have gain more interest/intent/goal/[whatever] the choices become less available to you. I am not going to go down to my neighbor's and steal his mower. I have no real choice in that based on the current state of the machine that is me.

No , but that decision is predetermined by conditioning. THe 'choices' might be available, but what is chosen is predetermined to it's merely an illusion there is a choice at all. The illusion of choice is important though.

No, it is not predetermined. It's just straight up normal "determined by course".

To be predetermined would be that I said "when someone attacks me this way, this reflex shall be trained to primacy".

But even that predetermination was not predetermined itself: it was just determined by course of me exposing myself to some perception of being attacked in that way, slowly at first, then quickly, and then suddenly, each time until the reflex happened the way I wished.

it was predetermined you would respond that way.

If you can establish that it was pre-determined I will be very impressed. Even in my game of Dwarf Fortress I can point to the difference between "predetermined" and "determined by course".

If you have any evidence that it was pre-determined rather than determined by course, please do present it.

That is the issue with determinism, predetermination, and in determinism. No one can show which the universe actually is I have yet to see someone propose a test to show which it is.

 

[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.

Yes, it does. to a degree.

It depends on the state of the machine. It allows a "choice" in some things. For example Something you don't really care about or you are just not sure what to do. There is nothing setting up the dominos so to speak so you make the choice in the last few "whatever seconds". And anything can come along and offer the illusion that you changed your mind. Due to you never really being that locked in.

As you have gain more interest/intent/goal/[whatever] the choices become less available to you. I am not going to go down to my neighbor's and steal his mower. I have no real choice in that based on the current state of the machine that is me.

No , but that decision is predetermined by conditioning. THe 'choices' might be available, but what is chosen is predetermined to it's merely an illusion there is a choice at all. The illusion of choice is important though.

No, it is not predetermined. It's just straight up normal "determined by course".

To be predetermined would be that I said "when someone attacks me this way, this reflex shall be trained to primacy".

But even that predetermination was not predetermined itself: it was just determined by course of me exposing myself to some perception of being attacked in that way, slowly at first, then quickly, and then suddenly, each time until the reflex happened the way I wished.

it was predetermined you would respond that way.

If you can establish that it was pre-determined I will be very impressed. Even in my game of Dwarf Fortress I can point to the difference between "predetermined" and "determined by course".

If you have any evidence that it was pre-determined rather than determined by course, please do present it.

That is the issue with determinism, predetermination, and in determinism. No one can show which the universe actually is I have yet to see someone propose a test to show which it is.

Yet we can absolutely say facts about deterministic systems!

One such fact is that "predetermination" of the kind you are proposing is only possible if there is a god ("fate" requires intent).

Secondly, we have established that all systems are representable as dererministic systems (non-disprovability of superdeterminism).

So if we can just show that any deterministic system allows wills, freedom, and choice, hard determinism is disproven.

Thirdly compatibilism is, quite thankfully,  also compatible with stochastic systems (it has to be because re: superdeterminism, those systems are also deterministically modelable).

 

[Marvin Edwards]

That is the issue with determinism, predetermination, and in determinism. No one can show which the universe actually is I have yet to see someone propose a test to show which it is.

The notion of reliable cause and effect is demonstrated in everything that happens and everything that we do. It is so common that we all take it for granted, until something breaks down and needs to be fixed. The ability to fix it assumes there is a cause and that the cause can be remedied. So, the notion that all events are reliably caused seems to be a reasonable assumption. Even if we have no clue what the cause is, we assume there is a cause.

The evidence against that assumption would be events that can be proven to be uncaused. But how could an uncaused event be demonstrated in any laboratory experiment? An experiment would need to reproduce the event under controlled conditions. But reproducing the event requires that we are able to "cause the uncaused event", a paradoxical notion.

 

[Jarhyn]

That is the issue with determinism, predetermination, and in determinism. No one can show which the universe actually is I have yet to see someone propose a test to show which it is.

The notion of reliable cause and effect is demonstrated in everything that happens and everything that we do. It is so common that we all take it for granted, until something breaks down and needs to be fixed. The ability to fix it assumes there is a cause and that the cause can be remedied. So, the notion that all events are reliably caused seems to be a reasonable assumption. Even if we have no clue what the cause is, we assume there is a cause.

The evidence against that assumption would be events that can be proven to be uncaused. But how could an uncaused event be demonstrated in any laboratory experiment? An experiment would need to reproduce the event under controlled conditions. But reproducing the event requires that we are able to "cause the uncaused event", a paradoxical notion.

Such events are generally called "spontaneous".

We have plenty of events observed that seem to happen spontaneously, that this is just a function of how stuff behaves between spontaneous vacuum fluctuations, to spontaneous tunneling events, to spontaneous decays.

Much of cosmology and QM is about discussing the probabilities of such spontaneous events.

The only model in which these are proposed as dererministic is Superdeterminism, and as discussed, this is an unfalsifiable proposition: it's useless for saying anything the system SHALL do, though it is useful for understanding what the system MAY contain (deterministic choice, wills, requirements, and freedom or lack thereof within the system towards the requirement).

As noted, we have observed MANY spontaneous events that appear absolutely stochastically as far as we can tell.

Superdeterminism only offers a model for allowing one to describe a stochastic system of apparently infinite extent as deterministic rather than merely a finite system.

It means for "freedom", "choice" and "will" to exist in stochastic systems it must exist in deterministic ones.

 

[SIB]

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.

Yes, it does. to a degree.

It depends on the state of the machine. It allows a "choice" in some things. For example Something you don't really care about or you are just not sure what to do. There is nothing setting up the dominos so to speak so you make the choice in the last few "whatever seconds". And anything can come along and offer the illusion that you changed your mind. Due to you never really being that locked in.

As you have gain more interest/intent/goal/[whatever] the choices become less available to you. I am not going to go down to my neighbor's and steal his mower. I have no real choice in that based on the current state of the machine that is me.

No , but that decision is predetermined by conditioning. THe 'choices' might be available, but what is chosen is predetermined to it's merely an illusion there is a choice at all. The illusion of choice is important though.

No doubt this is a component. There are some choices that I make that are predetermined by [whatever]. I think the issue is more about all or nothing more than logic sometimes. Also, there is a time component.

There are choices that I make that I really don't have a choice past the making it a base personal base axiom. For example, under the conditions I am under right now I will not go steal as car because I need one. That is now predetermined.

There are some choices that if you knew every state of every particle involved in me choosing that I am going to eat the chicken or the sausage tonight you might not be able to tell because I really do not care what one I eat. I mean literally, I don't care. As we approach the actual time that I eat it may become a little more "predetermined".

Again, this conclusion is based on not knowing way more than I know. So I retain the right to say "hey, I was wrong. How cool is that" if we learn something new.

 

[SIB]

That is the issue with determinism, predetermination, and in determinism. No one can show which the universe actually is I have yet to see someone propose a test to show which it is.

The notion of reliable cause and effect is demonstrated in everything that happens and everything that we do. It is so common that we all take it for granted, until something breaks down and needs to be fixed. The ability to fix it assumes there is a cause and that the cause can be remedied. So, the notion that all events are reliably caused seems to be a reasonable assumption. Even if we have no clue what the cause is, we assume there is a cause.

The evidence against that assumption would be events that can be proven to be uncaused. But how could an uncaused event be demonstrated in any laboratory experiment? An experiment would need to reproduce the event under controlled conditions. But reproducing the event requires that we are able to "cause the uncaused event", a paradoxical notion.

Such events are generally called "spontaneous".

We have plenty of events observed that seem to happen spontaneously, that this is just a function of how stuff behaves between spontaneous vacuum fluctuations, to spontaneous tunneling events, to spontaneous decays.

Much of cosmology and QM is about discussing the probabilities of such spontaneous events.

The only model in which these are proposed as dererministic is Superdeterminism, and as discussed, this is an unfalsifiable proposition: it's useless for saying anything the system SHALL do, though it is useful for understanding what the system MAY contain (deterministic choice, wills, requirements, and freedom or lack thereof within the system towards the requirement).

As noted, we have observed MANY spontaneous events that appear absolutely stochastically as far as we can tell.

Superdeterminism only offers a model for allowing one to describe a stochastic system of apparently infinite extent as deterministic rather than merely a finite system.

It means for "freedom", "choice" and "will" to exist in stochastic systems it must exist in deterministic ones.

may be. "spontaneous" is really more about "I didn't see that coming" more than spontaneous. Like a pink unicorn popping out of my kitchen floor. The math says its can happen. The reality is that it will never happen under the conditions we are at right now.

QM is based on probability so it has to add up to one.

We don't even know what space-time is. My guess is that when we do, one step closer to "predetermined" we will be. Like life was predetermined the moment it went "bang". Even though before it did, we couldn't tell. After we look back, the simplest we can say is "Life was inevitable".

 

[Jarhyn]

That is the issue with determinism, predetermination, and in determinism. No one can show which the universe actually is I have yet to see someone propose a test to show which it is.

The notion of reliable cause and effect is demonstrated in everything that happens and everything that we do. It is so common that we all take it for granted, until something breaks down and needs to be fixed. The ability to fix it assumes there is a cause and that the cause can be remedied. So, the notion that all events are reliably caused seems to be a reasonable assumption. Even if we have no clue what the cause is, we assume there is a cause.

The evidence against that assumption would be events that can be proven to be uncaused. But how could an uncaused event be demonstrated in any laboratory experiment? An experiment would need to reproduce the event under controlled conditions. But reproducing the event requires that we are able to "cause the uncaused event", a paradoxical notion.

Such events are generally called "spontaneous".

We have plenty of events observed that seem to happen spontaneously, that this is just a function of how stuff behaves between spontaneous vacuum fluctuations, to spontaneous tunneling events, to spontaneous decays.

Much of cosmology and QM is about discussing the probabilities of such spontaneous events.

The only model in which these are proposed as dererministic is Superdeterminism, and as discussed, this is an unfalsifiable proposition: it's useless for saying anything the system SHALL do, though it is useful for understanding what the system MAY contain (deterministic choice, wills, requirements, and freedom or lack thereof within the system towards the requirement).

As noted, we have observed MANY spontaneous events that appear absolutely stochastically as far as we can tell.

Superdeterminism only offers a model for allowing one to describe a stochastic system of apparently infinite extent as deterministic rather than merely a finite system.

It means for "freedom", "choice" and "will" to exist in stochastic systems it must exist in deterministic ones.

may be. "spontaneous" is really more about "I didn't see that coming" more than spontaneous. Like a pink unicorn popping out of my kitchen floor. The math says its can happen. The reality is that it will never happen under the conditions we are at right now.

QM is based on probability so it has to add up to one.

We don't even know what space-time is. My guess is that when we do, one step closer to "predetermined" we will be. Like life was predetermined the moment it went "bang". Even though before it did, we couldn't tell. After we look back, the simplest we can say is "Life was inevitable".

As I've pointed out, no matter what it is, you cannot say with any certainty that life was pre-determined. It was inevitable, but inevitability is not predetermination.

Predetermination in mathematical systems means that it was specified, as part of the initial condition.

Again, you conflate "determination by course" and predetermination.

In many ways, "predetermination" is mostly the thing that may be said to be the illusion. Obviously, not always. All predeterminations seem to flow back to a determination by course, of our world.