“Revolution in Thought: A new look at determinism and free will"

[pood]

It makes no sense, sorry. And it's not because I say so. The reasons why it has no merit have been explained more than enough times, only to be ignored or brushed aside and the claim repeated.

I've said everything I can to keep your interest. If I haven't, so be it. You can move on DBT, no one is keeping you here.

No one is keeping any of us here, yet here we are.

I thought determinism was making you be here?

If determinism is true, it doesn’t depend on someone being there to make you do something, but that events unfold or evolve as they must.

As they do, not as they must. Same old modal fallacy.

With no possible alternate action, "must" describes the evolution or progression of events well enough, as does necessitation.

The word is not the thing. How the system works is not changed by the words we use.

I merely refer to determinism as compatibilists define it to be. As an incompatibilist, I don't dispute the compatibilist definition of determinism, which is not the point of contention.

Anyhow, this has been done to death, so I don't want to get into it again.

Nor I, but there are possible alternate actions. This is where you err. All alternatives are possible. The one that is realized is the one that is, not the one that must be. This is your modal fallacy again and again,

 

[DBT]

It makes no sense, sorry. And it's not because I say so. The reasons why it has no merit have been explained more than enough times, only to be ignored or brushed aside and the claim repeated.

I've said everything I can to keep your interest. If I haven't, so be it. You can move on DBT, no one is keeping you here.

No one is keeping any of us here, yet here we are.

I thought determinism was making you be here?

If determinism is true, it doesn’t depend on someone being there to make you do something, but that events unfold or evolve as they must.

As they do, not as they must. Same old modal fallacy.

With no possible alternate action, "must" describes the evolution or progression of events well enough, as does necessitation.

The word is not the thing. How the system works is not changed by the words we use.

I merely refer to determinism as compatibilists define it to be. As an incompatibilist, I don't dispute the compatibilist definition of determinism, which is not the point of contention.

Anyhow, this has been done to death, so I don't want to get into it again.

Nor I, but there are possible alternate actions. This is where you err. All alternatives are possible. The one that is realized is the one that is, not the one that must be. This is your modal fallacy again and again,

Given the compatibilist definition of determinism, I don't see how it permits alternate actions at any point in the decision making process.

Sure, you do something else as events evolve, but the point is that events evolve, including decisions, according to antecedent conditions.

Oh, boy, here we go again...!

 

[pood]

Given the compatibilist definition of determinism, I don't see how it permits alternate actions at any point in the decision making process.

Sure, you do something else as events evolve, but the point is that events evolve, including decisions, according to antecedent conditions.

Oh, boy, here we go again...!

Yup!

 

[bilby]

Given the antecedent condition of "having done this to death with no change in opinion from either camp", it should be possible for us to choose not to do it again.

Just sayin'.

 

[DBT]

Given the antecedent condition of "having done this to death with no change in opinion from either camp", it should be possible for us to choose not to do it again.

Just sayin'.

Or, if determinism is true, it gets to a saturation point, a point where nobody wants to keep going and the dispute comes to an end. When that may happen is anyone's guess. Hopefully sooner rather than later.

 

[peacegirl]

knowing that will is not free changes human conduct

By definition, it cannot.

If will is not free, then nothing we know can change anything.

No bilby, this is not fatalism.

 

[peacegirl]

Given the antecedent condition of "having done this to death with no change in opinion from either camp", it should be possible for us to choose not to do it again.

Just sayin'.

Yes, you could choose not to do it again, but your desire to do it again is stronger, but this choice is not some kind of compulsion that you can't change if you want. It's as simple as that.

 

[peacegirl]

It makes no sense, sorry. And it's not because I say so. The reasons why it has no merit have been explained more than enough times, only to be ignored or brushed aside and the claim repeated.

I've said everything I can to keep your interest. If I haven't, so be it. You can move on DBT, no one is keeping you here.

No one is keeping any of us here, yet here we are.

I thought determinism was making you be here?

If determinism is true, it doesn’t depend on someone being there to make you do something, but that events unfold or evolve as they must.

As they do, not as they must. Same old modal fallacy.

With no possible alternate action, "must" describes the evolution or progression of events well enough, as does necessitation.

The word is not the thing. How the system works is not changed by the words we use.

I merely refer to determinism as compatibilists define it to be. As an incompatibilist, I don't dispute the compatibilist definition of determinism, which is not the point of contention.

Anyhow, this has been done to death, so I don't want to get into it again.

Nor I, but there are possible alternate actions. This is where you err. All alternatives are possible. The one that is realized is the one that is, not the one that must be. This is your modal fallacy again and again,

This is where you err Pood. Going back in time (which is impossible, of course), you could not have chosen otherwise. All alternatives are possible as you are contemplating which option is more advantageous to you. This is done BEFORE YOUR CHOICE IS MADE, NOT AFTER, which you keep suggesting.

 

[pood]

It makes no sense, sorry. And it's not because I say so. The reasons why it has no merit have been explained more than enough times, only to be ignored or brushed aside and the claim repeated.

I've said everything I can to keep your interest. If I haven't, so be it. You can move on DBT, no one is keeping you here.

No one is keeping any of us here, yet here we are.

I thought determinism was making you be here?

If determinism is true, it doesn’t depend on someone being there to make you do something, but that events unfold or evolve as they must.

As they do, not as they must. Same old modal fallacy.

With no possible alternate action, "must" describes the evolution or progression of events well enough, as does necessitation.

The word is not the thing. How the system works is not changed by the words we use.

I merely refer to determinism as compatibilists define it to be. As an incompatibilist, I don't dispute the compatibilist definition of determinism, which is not the point of contention.

Anyhow, this has been done to death, so I don't want to get into it again.

Nor I, but there are possible alternate actions. This is where you err. All alternatives are possible. The one that is realized is the one that is, not the one that must be. This is your modal fallacy again and again,

This is where you err Pood. Going back in time (which is impossible, of course), you could not have chosen otherwise. All alternatives are possible as you are contemplating which option is more advantageous to you. This is done BEFORE YOUR CHOICE IS MADE, NOT AFTER, which you keep suggesting.

Going to say this one more time, since we’ve been over it again and again, and you are incapable of learning anything. All contingent acts (acts that cold have been otherwise) are contingent before, during, and after they are executed. Norman Swartz calls this the Principle of the Fixity of Modal Status. Not only are such acts always contingently true, they are necessarily always contingently true. So, you are wrong again.

If any newcomers want to discuss this topic, I might join in, but as of now the dead horse has been beaten into its constituent atoms.

 

[peacegirl]

It makes no sense, sorry. And it's not because I say so. The reasons why it has no merit have been explained more than enough times, only to be ignored or brushed aside and the claim repeated.

I've said everything I can to keep your interest. If I haven't, so be it. You can move on DBT, no one is keeping you here.

No one is keeping any of us here, yet here we are.

I thought determinism was making you be here?

If determinism is true, it doesn’t depend on someone being there to make you do something, but that events unfold or evolve as they must.

As they do, not as they must. Same old modal fallacy.

With no possible alternate action, "must" describes the evolution or progression of events well enough, as does necessitation.

The word is not the thing. How the system works is not changed by the words we use.

I merely refer to determinism as compatibilists define it to be. As an incompatibilist, I don't dispute the compatibilist definition of determinism, which is not the point of contention.

Anyhow, this has been done to death, so I don't want to get into it again.

Nor I, but there are possible alternate actions. This is where you err. All alternatives are possible. The one that is realized is the one that is, not the one that must be. This is your modal fallacy again and again,

This is where you err Pood. Going back in time (which is impossible, of course), you could not have chosen otherwise. All alternatives are possible as you are contemplating which option is more advantageous to you. This is done BEFORE YOUR CHOICE IS MADE, NOT AFTER, which you keep suggesting.

Going to say this one more time, since we’ve been over it again and again, and you are incapable of learning anything. All contingent acts (acts that cold have been otherwise) are contingent before, during, and after they are executed. Norman Swartz calls this the Principle of the Fixity of Modal Status. Not only are such acts always contingently true, they are necessarily always contingently true. So, you are wrong again.

If any newcomers want to discuss this topic, I might join in, but as of now the dead horse has been beaten into its constituent atoms.

Yes, let’s end this. Contingently true acts do not contradict determinism in any way. The fact that something isn’t necessarily true like a 3-sided triangle has no reference to the fact that at a particular moment in time, my choice might be contingently true based on the antecedent events that I am using to come to a decision. Of course it doesn't mean that tomorrow that same choice would be necessarily true like one plus one is two is necessarily true. What in God's name does this have to do with having no free will and the fact that we are constantly moving in the direction of greater satisfaction?

Possibility of falsity: The opposite of the statement (its negation) could have been true ONLY UNDER DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES. And there is no way you can prove that, going back to the same exact time and place (which is impossible since it is in the past), my choice, although it was contingently true, based on what I indeed chose, could have been otherwise.

 

[bilby]

If any newcomers want to discuss this topic, I might join in, but as of now the dead horse has been beaten into its constituent atoms.

... paging Ernest Rutherford ...

 

[DBT]

It makes no sense, sorry. And it's not because I say so. The reasons why it has no merit have been explained more than enough times, only to be ignored or brushed aside and the claim repeated.

I've said everything I can to keep your interest. If I haven't, so be it. You can move on DBT, no one is keeping you here.

No one is keeping any of us here, yet here we are.

I thought determinism was making you be here?

If determinism is true, it doesn’t depend on someone being there to make you do something, but that events unfold or evolve as they must.

As they do, not as they must. Same old modal fallacy.

With no possible alternate action, "must" describes the evolution or progression of events well enough, as does necessitation.

The word is not the thing. How the system works is not changed by the words we use.

I merely refer to determinism as compatibilists define it to be. As an incompatibilist, I don't dispute the compatibilist definition of determinism, which is not the point of contention.

Anyhow, this has been done to death, so I don't want to get into it again.

Nor I, but there are possible alternate actions. This is where you err. All alternatives are possible. The one that is realized is the one that is, not the one that must be. This is your modal fallacy again and again,

This is where you err Pood. Going back in time (which is impossible, of course), you could not have chosen otherwise. All alternatives are possible as you are contemplating which option is more advantageous to you. This is done BEFORE YOUR CHOICE IS MADE, NOT AFTER, which you keep suggesting.

Going to say this one more time, since we’ve been over it again and again, and you are incapable of learning anything. All contingent acts (acts that cold have been otherwise) are contingent before, during, and after they are executed. Norman Swartz calls this the Principle of the Fixity of Modal Status. Not only are such acts always contingently true, they are necessarily always contingently true. So, you are wrong again.

If any newcomers want to discuss this topic, I might join in, but as of now the dead horse has been beaten into its constituent atoms.

Yes, let’s end this. Contingently true acts do not contradict determinism in any way. The fact that something isn’t necessarily true like a 3-sided triangle has no reference to the fact that at a particular moment in time, my choice might be contingently true based on the antecedent events that I am using to come to a decision. Of course it doesn't mean that tomorrow that same choice would be necessarily true like one plus one is two is necessarily true. What in God's name does this have to do with having no free will and the fact that we are constantly moving in the direction of greater satisfaction?

Possibility of falsity: The opposite of the statement (its negation) could have been true ONLY UNDER DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES. And there is no way you can prove that, going back to the same exact time and place (which is impossible since it is in the past), my choice, although it was contingently true, based on what I indeed chose, could have been otherwise.

Contingency is not the same as Determinism.

Two different things.

Compatibalism is related to determinism, not Contingency.

Compatibalism asserts that free will is compatible with determinism.

Invoking Contingency when the issue is Determinism is a category error.

 

[peacegirl]

It makes no sense, sorry. And it's not because I say so. The reasons why it has no merit have been explained more than enough times, only to be ignored or brushed aside and the claim repeated.

I've said everything I can to keep your interest. If I haven't, so be it. You can move on DBT, no one is keeping you here.

No one is keeping any of us here, yet here we are.

I thought determinism was making you be here?

If determinism is true, it doesn’t depend on someone being there to make you do something, but that events unfold or evolve as they must.

As they do, not as they must. Same old modal fallacy.

With no possible alternate action, "must" describes the evolution or progression of events well enough, as does necessitation.

The word is not the thing. How the system works is not changed by the words we use.

I merely refer to determinism as compatibilists define it to be. As an incompatibilist, I don't dispute the compatibilist definition of determinism, which is not the point of contention.

Anyhow, this has been done to death, so I don't want to get into it again.

Nor I, but there are possible alternate actions. This is where you err. All alternatives are possible. The one that is realized is the one that is, not the one that must be. This is your modal fallacy again and again,

This is where you err Pood. Going back in time (which is impossible, of course), you could not have chosen otherwise. All alternatives are possible as you are contemplating which option is more advantageous to you. This is done BEFORE YOUR CHOICE IS MADE, NOT AFTER, which you keep suggesting.

Going to say this one more time, since we’ve been over it again and again, and you are incapable of learning anything. All contingent acts (acts that cold have been otherwise) are contingent before, during, and after they are executed. Norman Swartz calls this the Principle of the Fixity of Modal Status. Not only are such acts always contingently true, they are necessarily always contingently true. So, you are wrong again.

If any newcomers want to discuss this topic, I might join in, but as of now the dead horse has been beaten into its constituent atoms.

Yes, let’s end this. Contingently true acts do not contradict determinism in any way. The fact that something isn’t necessarily true like a 3-sided triangle has no reference to the fact that at a particular moment in time, my choice might be contingently true based on the antecedent events that I am using to come to a decision. Of course it doesn't mean that tomorrow that same choice would be necessarily true like one plus one is two is necessarily true. What in God's name does this have to do with having no free will and the fact that we are constantly moving in the direction of greater satisfaction?

Possibility of falsity: The opposite of the statement (its negation) could have been true ONLY UNDER DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES. And there is no way you can prove that, going back to the same exact time and place (which is impossible since it is in the past), my choice, although it was contingently true, based on what I indeed chose, could have been otherwise.

Contingency is not the same as Determinism.

Two different things.

Compatibalism is related to determinism, not Contingency.

Compatibalism asserts that free will is compatible with determinism.

Invoking Contingency when the issue is Determinism is a category error.

Thank you. Pood just throws out this author's accurate definition of determinism and how contingent truths do not prove free will false. Modal logic talks about possible worlds (this sounds like science fiction to me) which only means that a choice could be different somewhere else in the universe (I guess), therefore they are not necessarily true like 3-sided triangles. That's what Pood brings up all the time. He uses this logic of Swartz to say that "we could have done otherwise." Can you straighten him out because I sure can't.

A contingent truth is a statement that is not necessarily true and not necessarily false; it is possible but not guaranteed to be true. In modal logic, a contingent statement is one that could be true in some possible worlds and false in others. The concept is often discussed in relation to the problem of future contingents, which explores how the truth value of statements about the future is determined.

Wikipedia

 

[DBT]

Again, Compatibalism is related to Determinism, not Contingency.

Basically.

"The assertion "determinism is not contingent" is accurate because determinism asserts that all events are necessitated by antecedent causes, leaving no room for chance or alternative outcomes, while contingency implies that events are dependent on specific prior circumstances and could have happened differently. Determinism inherently claims that the past dictates a single, unavoidable future, directly contradicting the essence of contingency, which is the possibility of alternatives.

Here's a breakdown of the concepts:

Determinism:

The philosophical stance that for any given state of the universe and a set of natural laws, there is only one possible future. Think of it like a tape that can only play out in one way.

Contingency:

The idea that an event is not necessary but depends on specific circumstances or chance. If something is contingent, it could have happened in a different way or not at all.

Why they are incompatible:

No Alternative Paths:

A truly deterministic system follows an inevitable chain of causes and effects. For example, if the initial conditions of Earth and the laws of nature determined everything, the origin of life would have followed a single, predictable path.

"What If?" Scenarios:

Contingency introduces "what if" scenarios. For instance, in evolutionary biology, contingency refers to how specific, unique historical events can lead to different evolutionary outcomes, even when faced with similar conditions. Determinism, by contrast, suggests there is only one possible evolutionary path.

In summary, determinism posits that the universe unfolds in a fixed, unalterable way, while contingency suggests that things could have been different. They are fundamentally opposing views on the nature of causality and the future." - AI Overview

 

[pood]

Thank you. Pood just throws out this author's accurate definition of determinism and how contingent truths do not prove free will false.

Right. Contingent truths do not prove free will false. They support it.

Modal logic talks about possible worlds (this sounds like science fiction to me)

But the light being at the eye eight minutes before it arrives there doesn’t sound like sci fi to you. Actually, it’s not sci-fi, it is sci insanity.

which only means that a choice could be different somewhere else in the universe (I guess), therefore they are not necessarily true like 3-sided triangles. That's what Pood brings up all the time. He uses this logic of Swartz to say that "we could have done otherwise." Can you straighten him out because I sure can't.

A contingent truth is a statement that is not necessarily true and not necessarily false; it is possible but not guaranteed to be true. In modal logic, a contingent statement is one that could be true in some possible worlds and false in others. The concept is often discussed in relation to the problem of future contingents, which explores how the truth value of statements about the future is determined.
Wikipedia

Right, the above is in accord with everything I’ve been saying, And? I’ve also covered the problem of future contingents which is no problem at all for modal logic.

 

[pood]

On the off chance that anyone is reading this besides us usual suspects who have participated in this long conversation about determinism and free will, let me point out a few things.

“Possible worlds” is not sci-fi. It’s just shorthand for “possible states of affairs in the actual world.”

Tomorrow, there is a possible state of affairs (possible world) in which Donald Trump will tell the truth, and a possible state of affairs (possible world) in which he lies,

Naturally, tomorrow, Trump is going to lie. He always lies, But just because he always lies and always will lie, it remains logically possible that he will tell the truth. Modal logic deals with truths of logic,

So even though Trump has always lied, lied today, and will lie tomorrow, his lying remains a contingent truth about the world

What about his past lies? Are they still contingent truths about the world? Yes! The past truths he never told are called possible non-actual worlds.

Necessary truths are not like this. Necessary truths are true in all possible states of affairs (all possible worlds). Statements that are necessarily false are false in all possible conditions (all possible worlds).

If I choose Pepsi over Coke, it is, was, and always will be, a contingent truth about the world — meaning I could have done otherwise.

 

[peacegirl]

Again, Compatibalism is related to Determinism, not Contingency.

Basically.

"The assertion "determinism is not contingent" is accurate because determinism asserts that all events are necessitated by antecedent causes, leaving no room for chance or alternative outcomes, while contingency implies that events are dependent on specific prior circumstances and could have happened differently. Determinism inherently claims that the past dictates a single, unavoidable future, directly contradicting the essence of contingency, which is the possibility of alternatives.

I guess it's how you define contingent. My choice to stay home today because a thunderstorm is brewing is contingent on the weather report, but that decision, once I made it, left no room for chance or an alternative outcome. To repeat: Contingency implies that events are dependent on specific prior circumstances, and due to those prior circumstances, we make decisions, and once made, they do not allow for the possibility of alternatives.

Here's a breakdown of the concepts:

Determinism:

The philosophical stance that for any given state of the universe and a set of natural laws, there is only one possible future. Think of it like a tape that can only play out in one way.

Contingency:

The idea that an event is not necessary but depends on specific circumstances or chance. If something is contingent, it could have happened in a different way or not at all.

Where does free will enter into this? The term contingent only means that circumstances change and depending on those circumstances (which is contingent on what those antecedent circumstances are), a choice is made but this does not mean that a different choice could have been made after the fact. Of course, a different future choice could be made. No one is debating this, yet Pood keeps bringing this up, as if somehow this proves that we have free will.

Why they are incompatible:

No Alternative Paths:

A truly deterministic system follows an inevitable chain of causes and effects. For example, if the initial conditions of Earth and the laws of nature determined everything, the origin of life would have followed a single, predictable path.

Right.

"What If?" Scenarios:

Contingency introduces "what if" scenarios. For instance, in evolutionary biology, contingency refers to how specific, unique historical events can lead to different evolutionary outcomes, even when faced with similar conditions. Determinism, by contrast, suggests there is only one possible evolutionary path.

These scenarios are just that, what ifs. They don't prove free will. All they state is that a different choice could be made in a different scenario, which is true because the conditions are different, but they certainly cannot prove that life could have travelled a different path.

In summary, determinism posits that the universe unfolds in a fixed, unalterable way, while contingency suggests that things could have been different. They are fundamentally opposing views on the nature of causality and the future." - AI Overview

This is where the terms "contingent truths" and "contingent" may have caused confusion because our choices are contingent on antecedent events when we are contemplating our options (which is the purpose of this attribute), but a contingent statement posits that a different choice, going back in time, could be true in some other possible world. This is science fiction because we cannot go back in time, which is the only way to prove that some other choice could have been made. It's impossible. No one is arguing that a different choice could be made at a future time. I may choose cereal for breakfast today and eggs tomorrow because my choices are contingent on what I'm in the mood for, which changes each day. But the point here is that once a choice is made (whatever it is) could not have been otherwise based on the unfolding of life in the direction of greater satisfaction. Pood is employing a strawman.

 

[DBT]

"Compatibilism is the philosophical view that free will and determinism are compatible, meaning both can be true at the same time without logical contradiction. Compatibilists, also known as soft determinists, argue that an action is "free" if it results from the agent's own internal desires and rational deliberations, rather than being forced by external constraints."

Definition of Free Will:

Compatibilists redefine free will not as an absolute ability to do otherwise in every circumstance, but rather as the ability to act according to one's own desires and rational choices in the absence of external coercion" - AI Overview

Contingency is not a part of the compatibilist definition of free will.

 

[pood]

"Compatibilism is the philosophical view that free will and determinism are compatible, meaning both can be true at the same time without logical contradiction. Compatibilists, also known as soft determinists, argue that an action is "free" if it results from the agent's own internal desires and rational deliberations, rather than being forced by external constraints."

Definition of Free Will:

Compatibilists redefine free will not as an absolute ability to do otherwise in every circumstance, but rather as the ability to act according to one's own desires and rational choices in the absence of external coercion" - AI Overview

Contingency is not a part of the compatibilist definition of free will.

It is in the sense that there must be contingent truths about the world. Otherwise we get what is called modal collapse, the idea that all truths are necessary truths. But this is obviously false.

The AI overview is OK as far as it goes but there is much more to it than that, including a variant of compatibilism called neo-Humean compatibilism

 

[DBT]

"Compatibilism is the philosophical view that free will and determinism are compatible, meaning both can be true at the same time without logical contradiction. Compatibilists, also known as soft determinists, argue that an action is "free" if it results from the agent's own internal desires and rational deliberations, rather than being forced by external constraints."

Definition of Free Will:

Compatibilists redefine free will not as an absolute ability to do otherwise in every circumstance, but rather as the ability to act according to one's own desires and rational choices in the absence of external coercion" - AI Overview

Contingency is not a part of the compatibilist definition of free will.

It is in the sense that there must be contingent truths about the world. Otherwise we get what is called modal collapse, the idea that all truths are necessary truths. But this is obviously false.

The AI overview is OK as far as it goes but there is much more to it than that, including a variant of compatibilism called neo-Humean compatibilism

Given that the compatibilist definition of free will is related to determinism, and determinism is not contingent, inserting contingency into compatibilism is a fallacy.