Demystifying Determinism

[bilby]

If unpredictability still allows for the universe to be rewound and then played again,

It doesn't.

Why you would think unpredictability (or anything else) might allow this is completely beyond me.

 

[DBT]

For heavens sake, what you say has no relevance to the terms and conditions of determinism

Determinism has no "terms or conditions". It does not work. It const...

Don't be silly, you yourself have given a description of the terms and conditions of determinism.

You are scraping the bottom of your barrel.

Terms and conditions;

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


''However, in order for determinism to be true, it must include all events. For example, determinism cannot exclude the effects of natural forces, like volcanoes and tidal waves or a meteor hitting the Earth. Determinism cannot exclude the effects of biological organisms that transform their environments, like tree seedlings changing bare land into a forest. Determinism cannot exclude the effects of deliberate choices, like when the chef prepares me the salad that I chose for lunch.

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


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



Determinism, in philosophy and science, the thesis that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable. Determinism entails that, in a situation in which a person makes a certain decision or performs a certain action, it is impossible that he or she could have made any other decision or performed any other action. In other words, it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did.''


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

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Again, if it was necessary that you would choose for yourself what you would do, then how is that any different than what you are doing and experiencing already?

That's my point. It is not any different. Determinism makes no practical difference.

Both incompatibilist positions, libertarian and hard determinism, are convinced that it makes a difference whether determinism is true or not. They both embrace the notion that determinism is some kind of external agent robbing us of our freedoms and our control. To escape this boogeyman, the theist runs to the supernatural and the atheist runs to quantum indeterminism.

But determinism is basically just good ol' reliable cause and effect. And everyone takes that for granted in everything that think and do. So, it is not some entity trying to control us against our will, but rather the natural occurrence of our own thoughts and feelings as we go about our daily lives.

If what happens is happening by necessity, then we do not have free will, since we can not choose to do anything different.

If we've already chosen the Chef Salad rather than the Steak dinner, why would we want to do anything different? And if we don't want to do anything different, where is the problem?

Freedom is basically the ability to do what we want. So, if we are already doing what we chose to do, then what is the problem?

Necessity prevents anything different from happening. If it is impossible for anything different to happen, then we do not have free will.

If you really wanted something different to happen, then why didn't you choose it? Your choosing to do what you did is what actually made it causally necessary.

Now, you will also have a history of prior events in your life that led to you being who and what you are today. But you have also been an active participant in that history of events from the day you were born. Your parents will attest to the fact that your crying for food at 2AM controlled their behavior as they hastily prepared a bottle. From the moment we are born, we are negotiating with our social environments (parents) and physical environments (the crib) for control.

Determinism can only assert that all these events were linked by normal cause and effect, and that the "laws of nature" were never violated during any of these events.

 

[Jarhyn]

How can you say they are free of influence when they are by necessity going to be the same each time

Because they are necessarily going to be just as free from all those influences and just as bound to the influenced they have had upon themselves, that influence being those of their own desires wants, and indeed, their decisions.

 

[Jarhyn]

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

Crock, your own definition of determinism entails a fixed system, a series of events that develop without deviation

So, according to your definition....as there is ''no randomness involved in the development of future states of the system,''

Go ahead. Find the reference to randomness or deviation, if you happen to believe there is one. Highlight it in red.

entailed, fixed, unchangeable

So it won't, which doesn't mean it can't re:

1. The dwarf is there, and I am going to make them do something, thus I stop my sub-universe and save it's state.

2. I copy the state.

3. I blindly write, to each of the copies, a will into the dwarf's head.

4. I run the system forward to see what is going to happen in each.

5. I find out all the things that the dwarf can "possibly" do, as an extension of the original state. this takes a great deal of time. This actually maps out a function U(x), where x is what is known in math as a "free variable". The free variable here is "the contents of the dwarf's head."

6. Armed with this U(x) function definition on the contents of the dwarf's head, I then set U(x) equal to the desired contents and then solve for x. This tells me what momentary x leads to the desired outcome.

7. I then put x in the dwarf's head, leaving behind the original universe entirely, and continuing with this one in which I mind controlled the dwarf.

Then the next part is that you need to realize there needs be no god or actual mind control going on here because the "dwarf" in our reality has the power to approximate U well enough, in macrophysical scale, to run this process themselves without having to stop time to run the solution.

The end result ends up being something like:


1. I am going to make ME do something, thus I stop my activity and think quickly, before I must make a decision.

2. I imagine a universe as macrophysics describes it, several times. (I make a copy).

3. I blindly write, to each of the copies, a series of stated actions. (I write a will into my own hypothetical head).

4. I run the system forward to see what is going to happen in each.

5. I find out all the things that the I can "possibly" do, in this hypothetical future moment, as an extension of the original state. this takes a little time, but not enough to actually bring me to the real future moment in which a decision must be made. This actually maps out a function U(x), where x is what is known in math as a "free variable". The free variable here is "the contents of my decision".

6. Armed with this approximal U(x) function definition on the contents of the my own head head, I then set U(x) equal to the desired contents and then solve for x. This tells me what momentary x leads to the desired outcome.

7. I then put x in the part of my own head that represents the region of free variance, thus making the decision leaving behind the past entirely, and continuing with this future in which I effectively mind controlled myself.

Nowhere is there randomness. There is only linear deterministic calculation happening here.

As you can see, it's not illusory, it's just approximal.

It's necessary approximal nature due to Incompleteness does not in fact change that it is the same fundamental operation being done, merely with approximal data.

 

[pood]

But it is not free from influence. It's influenced by the fact that it MUST be the same outcome every single time.

Another one who doesn’t know the difference between WILL and MUST, though it has been explained a bazillion times. Try a dictionary?

View attachment 40023

View attachment 40024

Now, you will no doubt tell me that an event that will necessarily happen is not inevitable, and an event that is inevitable doesn't mean it's necessarily going to happen, because all you have is quibbling over wordplay.

How in the world does quoting these dictionary definitions support your case? They precisely support mine, not yours!

Why did you put quote marks around something I did not say? Why won’t you answer the question: Did you, or did you not, read the supporting material I linked, including the paper entitled Foreknowledge and Free Will? Yes? No?

 

[pood]

It means that the outcome is NOT set in stone, it is NOT inevitable, and that whatever happens is NOT the one sequence of events that must necessarily happen.

No, it just means it cannot be predicted. That's ALL unpredictability means. It doesn't entail any of this other stuff.

Yes it does.

If unpredictability still allows for the universe to be rewound and then played again, then an outside observer could remember the outcome and then introduce that knowledge.

For example...

The outside observer ("OO" for short) watches the week play out from Monday to Friday. OO sees that on Friday I will wear my black pants to work, and that while I am at work, the pants split, causing me embarrassment. OO rewinds the universe to Monday, and provides me with information that says, "Kylie, don't wear the black pants to work on Friday because they will split. You should wear the beige pants instead."

Now, if you are correct, then somehow, it is necessary that I wear the black pants to work on Friday. I can not choose to wear the beige pants instead, despite the warning I have received. After all, the split pants outcome is set in stone, it's the inevitable outcome, it's the event that must necessarily happen. It can't be changed. No matter what, I'll be wearing the black pants and they will split and I'll be embarrassed. So I do not have free choice. It's like listening to a recording of some music. It will always be exactly the same. The flautist will always be a little sharp on the high F.

What other solutions could there be? Let's say I decide to wear the beige pants. I have free choice, but now the outcome is different. No problem here. OO could still have seen the black pants split on the first run through, but if the outcome is not set in stone, then I'm free to change it the second time around. This is like listening to a live performance. Even if it's the same players, they can still do it differently each time they play it.

This is so ridiculous. Your are clueless. What you are saying above supports the compatibilist position, and you don’t even see this. In your scenario, you have rewound the universe, BUT you have changed past, conditions, such that OO warns you not to wear black pants. What will happen then? If you believe OO, you won’t wear black pants, obviously! This is precisely the compatiblist position: l will not do otherwise UNDER THE EXACT SAME CIRCUMSTANCES. But I will, or at least might, do otherwise under DIFFERENT circumstances. You have introduced DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES in your scenario, and if you believe OO you will not wear the black pants. That’s compatibilism! Thanks for a good if unintended illustration of it.

 

[pood]

I’d add that it would behoove you to stop being so rude and snooty to people, particularly Marvin, who are tryiing patiently to walk you through your primitive errors of reasoniong.

 

[Kylie]

If unpredictability still allows for the universe to be rewound and then played again,

It doesn't.

Why you would think unpredictability (or anything else) might allow this is completely beyond me.

Good Lord...

I'm, not saying that if things are unpredictable then we can literally travel back and forth in time, for crying out loud. Are you unfamiliar with the concept of a HYPOTHETICAL?

I'm saying that IF things are unpredictable, and IF we COULD rewind the universe and play it again, we can not expect the end result to be the same the second time.

How many times must people go off on some ridiculous rant about one little thing while completely ignoring the actual point I was trying to make?

 

[Kylie]

But determinism is basically just good ol' reliable cause and effect.

I've clearly stated what my position is, several times. Once again you are arguing against a strawman of my position.

I have NEVER claimed that cause and effect is wrong.

 

[Jarhyn]

I'm saying that IF things are unpredictable, and IF we COULD rewind the universe and play it again, we can not expect the end result to be the same the second time

This is false on it's face.

Consider Pi.

Can you predict the 1000th digit of pi? Not just calculate it, but predict it without calculation of the 999th digit?

Will the 1000th digit of Pi ever change or calculate to a different number?

In fact, the only way to reach the 1000th digit of Pi is to calculate digits 1-999.

Repeat the exercise with the square root of 2.

Repeat the exercise with the square root of 209.

Predictability does not speak to reproducibility.

 

[Kylie]

I'm saying that IF things are unpredictable, and IF we COULD rewind the universe and play it again, we can not expect the end result to be the same the second time

This is false on it's face.

Consider Pi.

Can you predict the 1000th digit of pi? Not just calculate it, but predict it without calculation of the 999th digit?

Will the 1000th digit of pi ever change or calculate to a different number?

Repeat the exercise with the square root of 2.

Repeat the exercise with the square root of 209.

Predictability does not speak to reproducibility.

You are missing my point because those are not starting from the same place. And there is nothing in the calculation of pi that introduces an element of randomness.

My point was that if we were able to rewind the universe back to some previous state, then let it play out again, we would find differences occurring due to random events. Maybe the first time through, this particular atom in a block of radioactive material decayed first, and the second time through the atom next to it decayed first. The farther from the point that the universe was rewound to we get, the more differences we'd expect to see.

 

[bilby]

If unpredictability still allows for the universe to be rewound and then played again,

It doesn't.

Why you would think unpredictability (or anything else) might allow this is completely beyond me.

Good Lord...

I'm, not saying that if things are unpredictable then we can literally travel back and forth in time, for crying out loud. Are you unfamiliar with the concept of a HYPOTHETICAL?

I'm saying that IF things are unpredictable, and IF we COULD rewind the universe and play it again, we can not expect the end result to be the same the second time.

How many times must people go off on some ridiculous rant about one little thing while completely ignoring the actual point I was trying to make?

If you can't get the details of your position straight, that's nobody's fault but your own.

Your hypothetical doesn't help us; There are two possibilities that are equally well explained by our observations:

1) Everything is deterministic and fixed; Repeating the same stretch of time with no changes to starting conditions would result in the same outcome each time;

2) Some random elements occur that imply that repeating the sane stretch of time with no changes to starting conditions might result in more than one outcome

My point is that our freedom of will is completely the same regardless of which of these is the reality; And there's no possible way we could ever tell which if these is the reality, because we only ever get one attempt.

So your hypothetical is valueless, and I am justified in continuing to make the simplifying assumption (which, by the way, I have other reasons to think is likely to be false) that the universe is deterministic.

Certainly a deterministic universe doesn't have any effect whatsoever on our freedom to make judgements and choices. It's equivalent to being forced by the authorities to do exactly as you please - it's the one command you cannot possibly disobey no matter how much you want to, and it's the one command that doesn't in any way constrain your liberty to choose for yourself what to do.

 

[bilby]

I'm saying that IF things are unpredictable, and IF we COULD rewind the universe and play it again, we can not expect the end result to be the same the second time

This is false on it's face.

Consider Pi.

Can you predict the 1000th digit of pi? Not just calculate it, but predict it without calculation of the 999th digit?

Will the 1000th digit of pi ever change or calculate to a different number?

Repeat the exercise with the square root of 2.

Repeat the exercise with the square root of 209.

Predictability does not speak to reproducibility.

You are missing my point because those are not starting from the same place. And there is nothing in the calculation of pi that introduces an element of randomness.

My point was that if we were able to rewind the universe back to some previous state, then let it play out again, we would find differences occurring due to random events. Maybe the first time through, this particular atom in a block of radioactive material decayed first, and the second time through the atom next to it decayed first. The farther from the point that the universe was rewound to we get, the more differences we'd expect to see.

I don't think anyone here fails to understand this.

What we want from you is an explanation of why you think it has any relevance or bearing whatsoever on the question of whether we are able to freely choose between options.

You apparently think that the connection is so obvious that you don't need to articulate it. If so, you are mistaken.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

But determinism is basically just good ol' reliable cause and effect.

I've clearly stated what my position is, several times. Once again you are arguing against a strawman of my position.
I have NEVER claimed that cause and effect is wrong.

Your position is that if determinism is true then free will must be false.
My position is that determinism and free will are both true.

I'm pretty sure that all of the discussions that you and I have had are related to these two positions.

I don't recall asserting at any point that you were claiming that cause and effect is wrong. In fact, our agreement that events come about by cause and effect is the basis of reaching an agreement as to the proper definition of determinism.

 

[Jarhyn]

And there is nothing in the calculation of pi that introduces an element of randomness.

This belies a deep misunderstanding of what randomness means on a mathematical level.

Randomness does not imply things occur differently. Look up some time how computer systems actually generate "random" numbers, or more accurately named "pseudorandom" numbers.

The reality here is in fact that no "random" number generated solely by a computer is actually random: they are in fact the product of a Deterministic sequence derived from an algorithm and a seed.

There are, apparently, inaccessible processes.

These processes themselves produce numbers which, because their lack of apparent correlation to anything else observable, cannot be predicted.

Even though they cannot be predicted if they are rewound, they still resolve in the same way.

We know this because we did the experiment.

No, scientists didn’t just “reverse time” with a quantum computer

Amazing headlines about time machines are a long way off the mark, sadly.

www.google.com

I'll note that the article I link is clarifying for the scientifically uninformed that what was done was not exactly what headlines claimed.

Even so, what WAS done was a quantum system was actually reversed, and when released forward the same thing happened again.

There is nothing really different between one moment of a universe to the next, vs one digit of pi to the next, insofar as how neither can be predicted ahead of it's appointed expression in the system, and neither would need to change to have been a product of that prior moment.

 

[DBT]

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

Crock, your own definition of determinism entails a fixed system, a series of events that develop without deviation

So, according to your definition....as there is ''no randomness involved in the development of future states of the system,''

Go ahead. Find the reference to randomness or deviation, if you happen to believe there is one. Highlight it in red.

entailed, fixed, unchangeable

So it won't, which doesn't mean it can't re:

1. The dwarf is there, and I am going to make them do something, thus I stop my sub-universe and save it's state.

2. I copy the state.

3. I blindly write, to each of the copies, a will into the dwarf's head.

4. I run the system forward to see what is going to happen in each.

5. I find out all the things that the dwarf can "possibly" do, as an extension of the original state. this takes a great deal of time. This actually maps out a function U(x), where x is what is known in math as a "free variable". The free variable here is "the contents of the dwarf's head."

6. Armed with this U(x) function definition on the contents of the dwarf's head, I then set U(x) equal to the desired contents and then solve for x. This tells me what momentary x leads to the desired outcome.

7. I then put x in the dwarf's head, leaving behind the original universe entirely, and continuing with this one in which I mind controlled the dwarf.

Then the next part is that you need to realize there needs be no god or actual mind control going on here because the "dwarf" in our reality has the power to approximate U well enough, in macrophysical scale, to run this process themselves without having to stop time to run the solution.

The end result ends up being something like:


1. I am going to make ME do something, thus I stop my activity and think quickly, before I must make a decision.

2. I imagine a universe as macrophysics describes it, several times. (I make a copy).

3. I blindly write, to each of the copies, a series of stated actions. (I write a will into my own hypothetical head).

4. I run the system forward to see what is going to happen in each.

5. I find out all the things that the I can "possibly" do, in this hypothetical future moment, as an extension of the original state. this takes a little time, but not enough to actually bring me to the real future moment in which a decision must be made. This actually maps out a function U(x), where x is what is known in math as a "free variable". The free variable here is "the contents of my decision".

6. Armed with this approximal U(x) function definition on the contents of the my own head head, I then set U(x) equal to the desired contents and then solve for x. This tells me what momentary x leads to the desired outcome.

7. I then put x in the part of my own head that represents the region of free variance, thus making the decision leaving behind the past entirely, and continuing with this future in which I effectively mind controlled myself.

Nowhere is there randomness. There is only linear deterministic calculation happening here.

As you can see, it's not illusory, it's just approximal.

It's necessary approximal nature due to Incompleteness does not in fact change that it is the same fundamental operation being done, merely with approximal data.

You conveniently overlook the obvious: life and the world makes you what you are and how you think and respond, genetics, environment, family, culture and life experiences shape and form your being, determining how you think and what you think and do in any given circumstance.

That your situation in relation to your brain state informs the response that is made in each and every circumstance.

Not understanding the implications of your definition of determinism, you ignore the basics of cognition and response.

The nervous system.
''Every moment of the day your nervous system is active. It exchanges millions of signals corresponding with feeling, thoughts and actions. A simple example of how important the nervous system is in your behavior is meeting a friend.
First, the visual information of your eyes is sent to your brain by nervous cells. There the information is interpreted and translated into a signal to take action. Finally the brain sends a command to your voice or to another action system like muscles or glands. For example, you may start walking towards him. Your nervous system enables this rapid recognition and action. ''

Social conditioning.
''Human behavior is affected both by genetic inheritance and by experience. The ways in which people develop are shaped by social experience and circumstances within the context of their inherited genetic potential. The scientific question is just how experience and hereditary potential interact in producing human behavior.

Each person is born into a social and cultural setting—family, community, social class, language, religion—and eventually develops many social connections. The characteristics of a child's social setting affect how he or she learns to think and behave, by means of instruction, rewards and punishment, and example.

This setting includes home, school, neighborhood, and also, perhaps, local religious and law enforcement agencies. Then there are also the child's mostly informal interactions with friends, other peers, relatives, and the entertainment and news media. How individuals will respond to all these influences, or even which influence will be the most potent, tends not to be predictable.

There is, however, some substantial similarity in how individuals respond to the same pattern of influences—that is, to being raised in the same culture. Furthermore, culturally induced behavior patterns, such as speech patterns, body language, and forms of humor, become so deeply imbedded in the human mind that they often operate without the individuals themselves being fully aware of them.'


Dr. Robert Sapolsky: The basic theme is that we are biological creatures, which shouldn't be earth-shattering. And thus all of our behavior is a product of our biology, which also shouldn't be earth-shattering—even though it's news to some people.

If we want to make sense of our behavior—all the best, worst, and everything in between—we're not going to get anywhere if we think it can all be explained with one thing, whether it's one part of the brain, one childhood experience, one hormone, one gene, or anything. Instead, a behavior is the outcome of everything from neurobiology one second before the action, to evolutionary pressure dating back millions of years.

 

[Jarhyn]

You conveniently overlook the obvious: life and the world makes you what you are and how you think and respond

No, you have dodged the question. I'll get to that and in fact that is also answered in my post below, but first, please highlight where "randomness" or "deviation" is happening, because FIRST THINGS FIRST, you need to stop making invalid arguments about randomness and deviation.

so find the randomness and deviation, or stop bringing up randomness and deviation.

hilight it in red

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

Crock, your own definition of determinism entails a fixed system, a series of events that develop without deviation

So, according to your definition....as there is ''no randomness involved in the development of future states of the system,''

Go ahead. Find the reference to randomness or deviation, if you happen to believe there is one. Highlight it in red.

entailed, fixed, unchangeable

So it won't, which doesn't mean it can't re:

1. The dwarf is there, and I am going to make them do something, thus I stop my sub-universe and save it's state.

2. I copy the state.

3. I blindly write, to each of the copies, a will into the dwarf's head.

4. I run the system forward to see what is going to happen in each.

5. I find out all the things that the dwarf can "possibly" do, as an extension of the original state. this takes a great deal of time. This actually maps out a function U(x), where x is what is known in math as a "free variable". The free variable here is "the contents of the dwarf's head."

6. Armed with this U(x) function definition on the contents of the dwarf's head, I then set U(x) equal to the desired contents and then solve for x. This tells me what momentary x leads to the desired outcome.

7. I then put x in the dwarf's head, leaving behind the original universe entirely, and continuing with this one in which I mind controlled the dwarf.

Then the next part is that you need to realize there needs be no god or actual mind control going on here because the "dwarf" in our reality has the power to approximate U well enough, in macrophysical scale, to run this process themselves without having to stop time to run the solution.

The end result ends up being something like:


1. I am going to make ME do something, thus I stop my activity and think quickly, before I must make a decision.

2. I imagine a universe as macrophysics describes it, several times. (I make a copy).

3. I blindly write, to each of the copies, a series of stated actions. (I write a will into my own hypothetical head).

4. I run the system forward to see what is going to happen in each.

5. I find out all the things that the I can "possibly" do, in this hypothetical future moment, as an extension of the original state. this takes a little time, but not enough to actually bring me to the real future moment in which a decision must be made. This actually maps out a function U(x), where x is what is known in math as a "free variable". The free variable here is "the contents of my decision".

6. Armed with this approximal U(x) function definition on the contents of the my own head head, I then set U(x) equal to the desired contents and then solve for x. This tells me what momentary x leads to the desired outcome.

7. I then put x in the part of my own head that represents the region of free variance, thus making the decision leaving behind the past entirely, and continuing with this future in which I effectively mind controlled myself.

Nowhere is there randomness. There is only linear deterministic calculation happening here.

As you can see, it's not illusory, it's just approximal.

It's necessary approximal nature due to Incompleteness does not in fact change that it is the same fundamental operation being done, merely with approximal data.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Social conditioning.
''Human behavior is affected both by genetic inheritance and by experience. The ways in which people develop are shaped by social experience and circumstances within the context of their inherited genetic potential. The scientific question is just how experience and hereditary potential interact in producing human behavior.

Each person is born into a social and cultural setting—family, community, social class, language, religion—and eventually develops many social connections. The characteristics of a child's social setting affect how he or she learns to think and behave, by means of instruction, rewards and punishment, and example.

This setting includes home, school, neighborhood, and also, perhaps, local religious and law enforcement agencies. Then there are also the child's mostly informal interactions with friends, other peers, relatives, and the entertainment and news media. How individuals will respond to all these influences, or even which influence will be the most potent, tends not to be predictable.

There is, however, some substantial similarity in how individuals respond to the same pattern of influences—that is, to being raised in the same culture. Furthermore, culturally induced behavior patterns, such as speech patterns, body language, and forms of humor, become so deeply imbedded in the human mind that they often operate without the individuals themselves being fully aware of them.'

Yes. Sociology is an important study area because it demonstrates the social influences that can affect human behavior. It can detail the specific causes of specific effects. And that is useful information, because it suggests to us that making changes to society can improve the behavior of its individual members.

Unfortunately, Determinism tells us nothing useful about human behavior. It simply asserts that every event is reliably caused by prior events, such that whatever happens inevitably must happen. It is a general statement about general causation, without any details. In fact, the hard determinist will typically sweep the details under the rug of the generality. The hard determinist pretends that certain events, like choosing for ourselves what we will do, simply don't happen.

The sociologist, on the other hand, tells us the specific causes of criminal behavior, like poverty, unemployment, poor education, lack of afterschool recreation facilities, etc. Things we can actually do something about, if we choose to.

Dr. Robert Sapolsky: The basic theme is that we are biological creatures, which shouldn't be earth-shattering. And thus all of our behavior is a product of our biology, which also shouldn't be earth-shattering—even though it's news to some people.

If we want to make sense of our behavior—all the best, worst, and everything in between—we're not going to get anywhere if we think it can all be explained with one thing, whether it's one part of the brain, one childhood experience, one hormone, one gene, or anything. Instead, a behavior is the outcome of everything from neurobiology one second before the action, to evolutionary pressure dating back millions of years.

Sapolsky also provides some useful information about the biological constants of human behavior.

But neither of these quotes relate directly to determinism, or why determinism should matter to us. Perhaps it is because determinism simply doesn't matter, never has, and never will matter.

 

[DBT]

You conveniently overlook the obvious: life and the world makes you what you are and how you think and respond

No, you have dodged the question. I'll get to that and in fact that is also answered in my post below, but first, please highlight where "randomness" or "deviation" is happening, because FIRST THINGS FIRST, you need to stop making invalid arguments about randomness and deviation.

so find the randomness and deviation, or stop bringing up randomness and deviation.

hilight it in red

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

Crock, your own definition of determinism entails a fixed system, a series of events that develop without deviation

So, according to your definition....as there is ''no randomness involved in the development of future states of the system,''

Go ahead. Find the reference to randomness or deviation, if you happen to believe there is one. Highlight it in red.

entailed, fixed, unchangeable

So it won't, which doesn't mean it can't re:

1. The dwarf is there, and I am going to make them do something, thus I stop my sub-universe and save it's state.

2. I copy the state.

3. I blindly write, to each of the copies, a will into the dwarf's head.

4. I run the system forward to see what is going to happen in each.

5. I find out all the things that the dwarf can "possibly" do, as an extension of the original state. this takes a great deal of time. This actually maps out a function U(x), where x is what is known in math as a "free variable". The free variable here is "the contents of the dwarf's head."

6. Armed with this U(x) function definition on the contents of the dwarf's head, I then set U(x) equal to the desired contents and then solve for x. This tells me what momentary x leads to the desired outcome.

7. I then put x in the dwarf's head, leaving behind the original universe entirely, and continuing with this one in which I mind controlled the dwarf.

Then the next part is that you need to realize there needs be no god or actual mind control going on here because the "dwarf" in our reality has the power to approximate U well enough, in macrophysical scale, to run this process themselves without having to stop time to run the solution.

The end result ends up being something like:


1. I am going to make ME do something, thus I stop my activity and think quickly, before I must make a decision.

2. I imagine a universe as macrophysics describes it, several times. (I make a copy).

3. I blindly write, to each of the copies, a series of stated actions. (I write a will into my own hypothetical head).

4. I run the system forward to see what is going to happen in each.

5. I find out all the things that the I can "possibly" do, in this hypothetical future moment, as an extension of the original state. this takes a little time, but not enough to actually bring me to the real future moment in which a decision must be made. This actually maps out a function U(x), where x is what is known in math as a "free variable". The free variable here is "the contents of my decision".

6. Armed with this approximal U(x) function definition on the contents of the my own head head, I then set U(x) equal to the desired contents and then solve for x. This tells me what momentary x leads to the desired outcome.

7. I then put x in the part of my own head that represents the region of free variance, thus making the decision leaving behind the past entirely, and continuing with this future in which I effectively mind controlled myself.

Nowhere is there randomness. There is only linear deterministic calculation happening here.

As you can see, it's not illusory, it's just approximal.

It's necessary approximal nature due to Incompleteness does not in fact change that it is the same fundamental operation being done, merely with approximal data.

Irrelevant. You really need to grasp the implications of determinism. Given that the issues have been explained, supported and cited, with no progress being made, you are unlikely to ever understand.

Basically;

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

There are none.

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

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