Co-Determinism and the Reality of Free Will

[Quantum Quack]

You certainly have:
Post #524: "there is no freedom in a deterministic universe . period. Not for a human not for a thermostat not for a sophisticated infinitely programed self taught android either. Zip zilch zero.

OK

are we clear on that point at least."
And since being free (i.e. having freedom) is defined in the syllogism as having the ability to do otherwise... I'll leave you to join your own dots.

Since you have a problem with the word immaterial, I will use non-material instead.

• Freedom is non-material, it is a quality.
• A subjective and relative property of an activity.
• A quality that is determined by the determiner.

The question is whether that non-material quality called freedom, that we consider to be genuine, is or is not, an illusion.


So to repeat:
When referring to material freedom:
"there is no **material** freedom in a deterministic universe . period. Not for a human not for a thermostat not for a sophisticated infinitely programed self taught android either. Zip zilch zero."
because freedom is a non-material, relative and subjectively derived quality.

Ah, you mistake "we" for including you, when I am referring to myself and Baldeee (and Capracus, and others who hold our position, and who are able to follow simple syllogisms).

then please do not include us in your ramblings...if you seek validation then talk to Capracus or Baldeee.

It only takes one molecule to create a mutation within a body. One gamma ray, or x-ray, can start such, for example.

and it takes other molecules to manage any mutations as they occur...
An X-ray exposure may eventually kill a person, maybe, but not control their thoughts and decisions.

so try again... perhaps, but think a bit deeper next time... eh?

 

[Quantum Quack]

We are discussing the reality within the premises: i.e. the deterministic universe, and the notion of freedom as the ability to do otherwise.

No we are not..
We are discussing whether the relative subjective quality of freedom that we consider to be genuine, is an illusion or not.

• Hard determination states it to be an illusion.
• Co-determination states it to be genuine.

There is a need in this debate to clearly state what freedom is in a universe that is entirely deterministic.
If a human is a determiner and has learned to be able to determine his decisions, is this not a quality of freedom in a materially deterministic universe?

All decisions are predetermined, it is merely a question of by who or what...
===========

Cog in a watch analogy.

"If human being took control of your cog in your watch what would happen to your analogy?"

see this video ...

and ask yourself what happens when a human child takes manual control of any of the pivots...

• How does it effect the outcome of the mechanical computer?
• Who/what determines the outcome?
• Who What is responsible for the out come?

 

[Quantum Quack]

So, I got 4 predetermined alternatives to choose from. The universe doesn't care which one I choose as any choice will be just honky dory....
Satire:
I co-determine a choice and Sarkus yells out... "See, you can only choose one"....and Bladeee yells out "See there was only one to be chosen all the time"...
well go figure.... I choose one so of course I chose one...
But it is me doing the choosing and not an indifferent universe. I care, but it doesn't give a damn what I choose...

 

[Baldeee]

Since you have a problem with the word immaterial, I will use non-material instead.

• Freedom is non-material, it is a quality.
• A subjective and relative property of an activity.
• A quality that is determined by the determiner.

The question is whether that non-material quality called freedom, that we consider to be genuine, is or is not, an illusion.

I think this highlights one of the issues people have with the way you post, Quantum Quack.
When you say "there is no freedom in a deterministic universe . period." without qualification this covers all immaterial and non-material versions you think there are.
You have also spoken as freedom being immaterial, and as such when you subsequently refer merely to "freedom" without additional qualification one is entitled to think you are referring to this immaterial notion that you have spoken about.

Furthermore, you have been asked repeatedly how you differentiate between "material" and "immaterial" freedom, and you have yet to provide a response.
That freedom is a property is not in doubt, and never has been.
An "ability to do otherwise" would indeed be an immaterial property of the system in question.
But you have singularly failed to provide any example of a "material freedom" with which to contrast.

Even here, in your "clarification" (and I use the word advisedly) you beg the question: "a quality that is determined by the determiner" - so in essence you are saying that freedom is what is exhibited by someone who has freedom.
Way to go!

Do you deliberately post to confuse people?
Is your language deliberately intended to be muddled so as to give you what you see as sufficient room to manoeuvre when challenged?
Or is it just a symptom of an inability to think clearly, or to articulate what you do think?

 

[Baldeee]

No we are not..
We are discussing whether the relative subjective quality of freedom that we consider to be genuine, is an illusion or not.

You are already confusing arguments and plucking words from anywhere.
The question of whether freedom is an illusion or not is in direct relation to the notion of freedom as "the ability to do otherwise".
If you think this debate is about the question of whether freedom is illusory or not then you are discussing freedom as "the ability to do otherwise".

• Hard determination states it to be an illusion.
• Co-determination states it to be genuine.

There is a need in this debate to clearly state what freedom is in a universe that is entirely deterministic.

I think Sarkus has already stated that if you define "freedom" to be something other than "ability to do otherwise" then you can reach any other conclusion you want.
Furthermore, you specifically saw "co-determinism" as a way through the debate between compatibilists and incompatibilists, and that debate is almost entirely revolving around the notion of freedom as the "ability to do otherwise".
So again, evidence of your inconsistency, and your muddled thinking.

If a human is a determiner and has learned to be able to determine his decisions, is this not a quality of freedom in a materially deterministic universe?

Depends how much you want to beg the question.
If you want them to have "freedom" then I'm sure you could come up with a notion of freedom that will allow it.

All decisions are predetermined, it is merely a question of by who or what...

Given that in a deterministic universe all actions and decisions were predetermined long before any life ever reared its head, what do you think predetermined the course of events?

Cog in a watch analogy.

"If human being took control of your cog in your watch what would happen to your analogy?"

Nothing at all.
The human is just another cog.

and ask yourself what happens when a human child takes manual control of any of the pivots...

• How does it effect the outcome of the mechanical computer?
• Who/what determines the outcome?
• Who What is responsible for the out come?

The child adds complexity to the overall system involved.
The system determines the outcome, as before, but now the system is more complex.
As for responsibility, this only has meaning to a conscious entity, and as such we can only assign it (if at all) to a conscious entity.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I think this highlights one of the issues people have with the way you post, Quantum Quack.
When you say "there is no freedom in a deterministic universe . period." without qualification this covers all immaterial and non-material versions you think there are.

It was qualified in the context of the discussion at the time.. see post preceding #524
It is very easy to misrepresent someones post by quoting out of context when you have an ongoing discussion covering hundreds of posts. It indicates dishonesty and a lack of due diligence.

The freedom that Sarkus was chasing on page 26 and 27 is impossible in the version of determinism you and he are using. Hence any freedom has to be supernatural.
No not even a thermostat has freedom because you are talking about material freedom not non-material freedom.
You guys are constantly mixing up the context of the word freedom and have refused so far to indicate a willingness to clarify your position. This strategy of switching context, allows you to be able to argue and get no where every time you are cornered. It is transparently obvious and to be honest, disappointing.

You have also spoken as freedom being immaterial, and as such when you subsequently refer merely to "freedom" without additional qualification one is entitled to think you are referring to this immaterial notion that you have spoken about.

Do you see how confused you are?
Material freedom is impossible period. Non-material freedom is a quality...and is possible...
There is no need for your confusion. If you actually read the thread as it takes place and not cherry pick when it suits you.

Furthermore, you have been asked repeatedly how you differentiate between "material" and "immaterial" freedom, and you have yet to provide a response.
That freedom is a property is not in doubt, and never has been.

So you answer your own dilemma... well done...and declare knowing even though you plead confusion.
Freedom is a property, a quality and can exist in a deterministic universe. It is whether that property is genuine or an illusion that is the question.

An "ability to do otherwise" would indeed be an immaterial property of the system in question.

and that ability to actually do other wise is genuine... yes...again well done. Co-determination fully integrates self determination into a deterministic universe. That self determination grants a quality called freedom...
It's not all that hard when you think about it...

Even here, in your "clarification" (and I use the word advisedly) you beg the question: "a quality that is determined by the determiner" - so in essence you are saying that freedom is what is exhibited by someone who has freedom.
Way to go!

Context Baldeee... you seem reluctant to actually put things in the correct context... why?

The quality you are referring to certainly isn't determined by the universe is it?
So who determines the quality other than the one doing the (co)determining?

Hard Determinism fails.
Regardless the whole issue is over and done with once you understand that for logic to be genuine an actor must determine it to be so.
If there is no genuine actor then there is no genuine logic. Period.
So therefore self determination and it's associated qualities, is fundamentally essential for the logic of determinism to be valid.
The rest of the discussion is trivial and inconsequential when compared to the above.


The logic of secular fatalist hard determinism falls on it's face, simply because for it to have any validity, there must be an actor WITH the learned ability to choose other wise....

Do you deliberately post to confuse people?
Is your language deliberately intended to be muddled so as to give you what you see as sufficient room to manoeuvre when challenged?
Or is it just a symptom of an inability to think clearly, or to articulate what you do think?

Do you always end your posts with a silly taunt deliberately or are you dealing with some sort of uncontrolled vitriolic compulsion like Sarkus is?
Every one of you posts follows the same pattern... perhaps a lack of creativity is present...or are you really just taunting yourself...in reflection...?

 

[Baldeee]

It was qualified in the context of the discussion at the time.. see post preceding #524
It is very easy to misrepresent someones post by quoting out of context when you have an ongoing discussion covering hundreds of posts. It indicates dishonesty and a lack of due diligence.

I have read those posts, and your post #524 was quite clear in the matter.
You had previously suggested, despite any clarification of the matter when asked, that there were notions of material freedom and immaterial freedom.
You then quite specifically stated that: ""there is no freedom in a deterministic universe . period. Not for a human not for a thermostat not for a sophisticated infinitely programed self taught android either. Zip zilch zero."
There is no qualification of that freedom, just freedom.

The freedom that Sarkus was chasing on page 26 and 27 is impossible in the version of determinism you and he are using. Hence any freedom has to be supernatural.
No not even a thermostat has freedom because you are talking about material freedom not non-material freedom.

And yet you haven't actually provided any example of "material freedom", so that we can distinguish from "immaterial freedom".
You have created this distinction yet have failed completely to provide any explanation of it, any example of it.

You guys are constantly mixing up the context of the word freedom and have refused so far to indicate a willingness to clarify your position.

We have been quite clear in the freedom we are discussing: "ability to do otherwise" (or words to that effect).
It is you who has failed to provide any explanation or clarification.

Do you see how confused you are?
Material freedom is impossible period. Non-material freedom is a quality...and is possible...

Stating it doesn't make it so.
First you actually have to explain what you mean by "material freedom" and "non-material freedom".
Can you please do that?
You have been asked repeatedly yet all you have done is... nothing.

So you answer your own dilemma... well done...and declare knowing even though you plead confusion.

I don't answer any dilemma that I didn't have.
Can you not see how even your response here is confused??
If I am referring to freedom (ability to do otherwise) as a quality etc, which I am, then this, per you, is "immaterial freedom".
If I am saying that this freedom, per the logic, does not exist, then your foray into the distinction between "material" and "non-material" freedom is nothing but a red-herring.
You can't then point to what I am referring to as freedom and go "look, that's material freedom" because it is, per you, immaterial, a quality.
You see, you are confused by your own terminology, and your own muddled thinking.

Freedom is a property, a quality and can exist in a deterministic universe.

It is indeed a quality.
Whether it can exist in a deterministic universe or not is what is in question.
I, and others, claim it can not, and have provided our reasoning.
You, and others, claim it can.
If it does not exist then what we observed as such freedom must be an illusion of that which otherwise does not exist.

and that ability to actually do other wise is genuine... yes...again well done.

You assert it is genuine, but your reasoning for such is...?
Or are you just going to go with the unsupported claim and beg the very question at the heart of the debate?

Co-determination fully integrates self determination into a deterministic universe. That self determination grants a quality called freedom...
It's not all that hard when you think about it...

If you redefine freedom, sure, you can end up with any conclusion you want.

Hard Determinism fails.
Regardless the whole issue is over and done with once you understand that for logic to be genuine an actor must determine it to be so.
If there is no genuine actor then there is no genuine logic. Period.
So therefore self determination and it's associated qualities, is fundamentally essential for the logic of determinism to be valid.
The rest of the discussion is trivial and inconsequential when compared to the above.

Still trotting out the inane effort to justify ignoring one side of the debate, eh?
Or do you genuinely think the universe only operates the way it does if we are here to observe it?

The logic of secular fatalist hard determinism falls on it's face, simply because for it to have any validity, there must be an actor WITH the learned ability to choose other wise....

Nonsense.
While logic requires some sentience to identify it as such, the universe will continue to operate the way it does irrespective of the existence of such sentience.
If you can't accept even that much I'll happily move out of the sandpit and leave you to bury your head in peace.

Do you always end your posts with a silly taunt deliberately or are you dealing with some sort of uncontrolled vitriolic compulsion like Sarkus is?
Every one of you posts follows the same pattern... perhaps a lack of creativity is present...or are you really just taunting yourself...in reflection...?

Ah, the irony.
If you don't deliberately post to confuse people, perhaps you could start by actually providing clarification when and where asked?
That would make a welcome change.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I have read those posts, and your post #524 was quite clear in the matter.
You had previously suggested, despite any clarification of the matter when asked, that there were notions of material freedom and immaterial freedom.
You then quite specifically stated that: ""there is no freedom in a deterministic universe . period. Not for a human not for a thermostat not for a sophisticated infinitely programed self taught android either. Zip zilch zero."
There is no qualification of that freedom, just freedom.

What you are missing is that even if the actor learns to self determine he is never free as he is still compelled to choose even if he chooses not to choose, he MUST choose.
There is no escape from being a self determiner other than death.

Ever heard the saying "I didn't ask to be born"

I have a list of questions that you and Sarkus have thus far refused to deal with or even acknowledge.
One of them is:

(#3) If all alternative choices are predetermined to be genuine alternatives, is the choice of one of them genuine or an illusion?

Asked on numerous occasions but evaded with silly taunts and strawmen.

 

[Quantum Quack]

It seems to me that freedom would be impossible in such a universe.

If one thinks in a Linea single dimensional way perhaps true...
but try this to expand the dimensions a little:

If all alternative choices are predetermined to be genuine alternatives, is the choice of one of them genuine or an illusion?
(put aside the term freedom - The question is not whether the choice is free. It is specifically about whether the choice it is of a genuine alternative.)

The logic of infinite predetermination ultimately grants the maximum of the quality freedom...with out anything violating that predetermination.
Predetermination only "oppresses" if applied in a finite fashion.

"Freely choosing the center of an infinite volume of empty space is easy. It can be any where you want it to be"​

Thus my unanswered questions of sarkus and baldee:

(#2) Why does determinism ( all current mainstream branches) arbitrarily limit the capacity of a deterministic universe to evolve a human that is capable of learning how to determine for him self?

There is no logical reason to place a limitation on deterministic evolution that I know of.

 

[Quantum Quack]

a video of a child learning to self determine...

 

[Quantum Quack]

Still trotting out the inane effort to justify ignoring one side of the debate, eh?
Or do you genuinely think the universe only operates the way it does if we are here to observe it?

is your response to this...

Hard Determinism fails.
Regardless the whole issue is over and done with once you understand that for logic to be genuine an actor must determine it to be so.
If there is no genuine actor then there is no genuine logic. Period.
So therefore self determination and it's associated qualities, is fundamentally essential for the logic of determinism to be valid.
The rest of the discussion is trivial and inconsequential when compared to the above.

So how have you refuted my point about LOGIC?
straw man special yes?

With no genuine actor there is no way to determine how the universe functions. Period.

 

[Baldeee]

What you are missing is that even if the actor learns to self determine he is never free as he is still compelled to choose even if he chooses not to choose, he MUST choose.
There is no escape from being a self determiner other than death.

And choice is but a process.
It gets us no closer to the question of whether one has the ability to do otherwise.
We have all accepted that choice, the will, etc, are processes that exist.
There is no dispute there.

(#3) If all alternative choices are predetermined to be genuine alternatives, is the choice of one of them genuine or an illusion?

Two issues with this question:
1) you are begging the question by assuming the alternatives to be genuine, when that is the very question at hand
2) the process of choice is genuine and not an illusion, and that is not disputed, whether there are genuine alternatives or not.
What is disputed is the issue of whether there really is an ability to do otherwise - i.e. whether there are genuine alternatives.
So pick out from this your answer.

Asked on numerous occasions but evaded with silly taunts and strawmen.

Apologies, where did you raise this question previously?
If you could quote the post number, please?

So how have you refuted my point about LOGIC?

I thought that much would have been obvious: our use of logic, our understanding of it, is irrelevant to how the universe operates.
Your attempt to claim that if self-determining entities don't exist then logic is an illusion and therefore you can ignore anything the other side says is simply absurd, as the universe will continue to operate in the manner it does, irrespective of any self-determining entity's existence.

With no genuine actor there is no way to determine how the universe functions. Period.

So what?
Furthermore you are equivocating on the word "determine".
Here you are using it in the sense of "ascertain", and that is fundamentally different to its meaning in the sense of deterministic, which is to do with causation.
If noone "determines" who a murderer is when there's a body with a knife in its back, does that mean that someone didn't murder the person?
No, and thus whether or not someone "determines" how the universe operates doesn't mean that the universe doesn't operate how it does.
Your logic, your thinking, your use of language, continues to be confused.

 

[Quantum Quack]

And choice is but a process.
It gets us no closer to the question of whether one has the ability to do otherwise.
We have all accepted that choice, the will, etc, are processes that exist.
There is no dispute there.
Two issues with this question:
1) you are begging the question by assuming the alternatives to be genuine, when that is the very question at hand
2) the process of choice is genuine and not an illusion, and that is not disputed, whether there are genuine alternatives or not.
What is disputed is the issue of whether there really is an ability to do otherwise - i.e. whether there are genuine alternatives.
So pick out from this your answer.
Apologies, where did you raise this question previously?
If you could quote the post number, please?

I thought that much would have been obvious: our use of logic, our understanding of it, is irrelevant to how the universe operates.
Your attempt to claim that if self-determining entities don't exist then logic is an illusion and therefore you can ignore anything the other side says is simply absurd, as the universe will continue to operate in the manner it does, irrespective of any self-determining entity's existence.
So what?
Furthermore you are equivocating on the word "determine".
Here you are using it in the sense of "ascertain", and that is fundamentally different to its meaning in the sense of deterministic, which is to do with causation.
If noone "determines" who a murderer is when there's a body with a knife in its back, does that mean that someone didn't murder the person?
No, and thus whether or not someone "determines" how the universe operates doesn't mean that the universe doesn't operate how it does.
Your logic, your thinking, your use of language, continues to be confused.

I'll let you think about your post for a while before I respond if I bother to.
It is so full of contradiction I don't know where to start.

 

[Quantum Quack]

so I ask this question:

(#3) If all alternative choices are predetermined to be genuine alternatives, is the choice of one of them genuine or an illusion?

and Baldeee responds with

Two issues with this question:
1) you are begging the question by assuming the alternatives to be genuine, when that is the very question at hand
2) the process of choice is genuine and not an illusion, and that is not disputed, whether there are genuine alternatives or not.
What is disputed is the issue of whether there really is an ability to do otherwise - i.e. whether there are genuine alternatives.
So pick out from this your answer.

and so I can only repeat the question because you have failed to address it.
All though you probably believe that you have)
IF.... IF.....IF

(#3) If all alternative choices are predetermined to be genuine alternatives, is the choice of one of them genuine or an illusion?

Can you try again?

I thought that much would have been obvious: our use of logic, our understanding of it, is irrelevant to how the universe operates.
Your attempt to claim that if self-determining entities don't exist then logic is an illusion and therefore you can ignore anything the other side says is simply absurd, as the universe will continue to operate in the manner it does, irrespective of any self-determining entity's existence.

you still can't get it can you?
Of course the universe will operate and function as it has to but if there is no genuine actor to determine what that function is then any understanding of that universe is an illusion.
Thus a genuine actor is essential for any "real" and genuine understanding of how that universe functions.

You may be suffering from your own delusions about your own competency and believe that you are vindicated because no one dares to challenge you, but it is merely a delusion because no one could be bothered to attempt to untangle the BS reasoning you are using.
I ask about the genuineness of the logic of hard determinism with out a genuine actor to determine that logic, and you throw BS about how the universe will function as logically described, whether or not the actor determining that logic is genuine or not.
Are you really that incompetent?


IF

• All alternative choices are predetermined to be genuine alternatives

Is the choice of one of them genuine or an illusion?

2) the process of choice is genuine and not an illusion, and that is not disputed, whether there are genuine alternatives or not.
What is disputed is the issue of whether there really is an ability to do otherwise - i.e. whether there are genuine alternatives.
So pick out from this your answer.

You fail to realize that for the process to be genuine, the choices to be genuine the ability to do other wise MUST be present.

So again your incompetency comes to the for...


There is only one answer Baldeee.

and that is that hard determinism falls on it's face as Iceaura and I have been trying to get across for so many posts.

This logical contradiction exists in all forms of determinism except the one that allows genuine self determination. AKA Co-determinism.
It was this very contradiction that led to developing the philosophy of co-determination to begin with.

 

[Baldeee]

and so I can only repeat the question because you have failed to address it.
...
Can you try again?

Maybe when you ask a sensible question.
To use an analogy that someone else has used, you are asking about when someone escapes from an inescapable room.
To make it simpler for you: if alternative choices are predetermined then they are not genuine, as per the logic and argument already given.
So you can talk about scenarios that are contradictions, but that doesn’t make them sensible.
Until you ask a sensible question, the answer I gave will have to suffice.

Of course the universe will operate and function as it has to but if there is no genuine actor to determine what that function is then any understanding of that universe is an illusion.

So what?
The universe doesn’t operate on one’s understanding of it.

Thus a genuine actor is essential for any "real" and genuine understanding of how that universe functions.

That is begging the question, as explained.
You actually have to provide the argument to support it.

You may be suffering from your own delusions about your own competency and believe that you are vindicated because no one dares to challenge you, but it is merely a delusion because no one could be bothered to attempt to untangle the BS reasoning you are using.

Those who do understand it are able to talk quite competently about it.
And there are several here who can, and do.
If you mistake everything you don’t understand for BS then no wonder we are suffering from climate changes given all the methane that must be piled up.

I ask about the genuineness of the logic of hard determinism with out a genuine actor to determine that logic, and you throw BS about how the universe will function as logically described, whether or not the actor determining that logic is genuine or not.
Are you really that incompetent?

You are begging the question.
You need to show, not just state, that to be able to understand takes a “genuine actor” when it is that “genuineness” that is in question.
At the moment you have simply asserted it.
I await something more from you if you are to be taken seriously.

IF

• All alternative choices are predetermined to be genuine alternatives

Is the choice of one of them genuine or an illusion?

You offer a scenario that is a logical contradiction.
Predetermined choices, per the logic and argument already provided, can not be genuine.
If you change what it means to be a “genuine choice”, i.e. change freedom from “ability to do otherwise” to something more akin to degrees of freedom, then you can conclude differently.

You fail to realize that for the process to be genuine, the choices to be genuine the ability to do other wise MUST be present.

So your argument is if something that is impossible is predetermined to be possible, then it must be possible?
And you don’t see within that the inherent contradiction of what you ask?
No wonder you suffer so.

There is only one answer Baldeee.

That you’re unable to understand the implications of what you write?
Well, that is one answer.

and that is that hard determinism falls on it's face as Iceaura and I have been trying to get across for so many posts.

Just a pity that neither you nor he has shown any such thing, and all you have been able to do is offer an internally contradictory scenario as some argument,

This logical contradiction exists in all forms of determinism except the one that allows genuine self determination. AKA Co-determinism.
It was this very contradiction that led to developing the philosophy of co-determination to begin with.

So you keep asserting.
Just a pity that nothing you write actually supports there being a contradiction to resolve, and that your only “argument” for such is asked via a question effectively asking if the impossible is possible.
Try and be sensible in what you ask and things will progress more serenely, won’t they?

 

[Quantum Quack]

You offer a scenario that is a logical contradiction.
Predetermined choices, per the logic and argument already provided, can not be genuine.
If you change what it means to be a “genuine choice”, i.e. change freedom from “ability to do otherwise” to something more akin to degrees of freedom, then you can conclude differently.

of course they can....
If all choices possible are pre-determined to be possible and valid then any choice made is genuine.
What does genuine choice mean to you?
the word choice means what?

 

[Quantum Quack]

So your argument is if something that is impossible is predetermined to be possible, then it must be possible?

why is it impossible?
Is everything predetermined or not?

 

[Baldeee]

of course they can....
If all choices possible are pre-determined to be possible and valid then any choice made is genuine.
What does genuine choice mean to you?
the word choice means what?

why is it impossible?
Is everything predetermined or not?

If everything is predetermined there is only one course of events.
If there is but a single course of events, how is there any “genuine alternative” to that one course of events?

 

[Quantum Quack]

If everything is predetermined there is only one course of events.

Nope!
If everything is predetermined then every possible course is available...all the time.
1 x infinity = infinity

 

[Quantum Quack]

Baldeee,
What makes you think only one course is possible?