Does Physics disprove the existence of free will?

[Write4U]

As soon as the focus narrows to the entity of interest - a human being, making decisions in real time according to information acquired in real time - we observe that this entity is in fact making decisions and acting on them in real time according to information acquired in real time. That is among its abilities

Are you saying that humans have freedom to choose in some cases and not in other cases?

i.e. You cannot choose your body's autonomous functions. They function without your conscious consent. However, when something goes wrong internally your regulatory system will warn you, usually through pain.

You are saying that at this point we have the ability and freedom to choose between seeing a doctor or not?

 

[Baldeee]

The case is not theoretical, but observational.

So you judge "the ability to do otherwise" by observation?
Okay.
You had rejected that earlier.

To what "stage" do you refer?

Every stage.
Every moment is its own stage.
Every time the driver does anything, whether that is to stop or not.

The example is of a driver approaching a traffic light. That's the "stage". None of your assertions holds, at that stage.

They all hold.
The decision at that stage not to slow down.
At that stage, based upon the inputs, they could not do otherwise.
The same holds for every moment.
When they stop it is because, based upon the inputs, they could not do otherwise.
What you refer to the ability to do otherwise is nothing but an assessment of future possibilities, made in an absence of information.
Because you don't know what the inputs at the time will be, all you can say is that the output may be one thing or another (but we can't tell which because we don't know what the inputs will be at the time), but that is not an ability to do otherwise.

You haven't consistently identified your "system" or its inputs, and you have muddled your timelines to the point that the very existence of time itself, much less cause and effect, is in question.

Not at all.
I have been quite consistent in all things.
Timelines are where you muddle the ability with merely an appearance of the ability, but you fail to comprehend that every moment has its own system.
Every moment is governed (in a deterministic universe) by its own inputs, those being the outputs of the moment before.
You look at a point in the future, and because you don't know what the inputs are go "well, depending on the inputs it could be X or could be Y... therefore an ability to do otherwise".
But the same is true of Elon Musk's Tesla in orbit: if nothing imparts any momentum to it then it will continue in a defined orbit.
If it gets hit with any debris or a micro-meteor then it will move in another direction.
Look!
That must be an ability to do otherwise.

I'm sure you will waffle on while hand-waving about logical levels, but until you actually put some substance on those words, and put forward an argument, handwaving and waffling is all you have.

Why should I be responsible for explaining or justifying your confused misconceptions and willful obliviousness?

I am not asking you to explain anything of my argument.
I am asking you to put forward your own.
You can't grasp the one I put forward.
Every time you post that much is evident.
So put forth your own counter argument.

I'm dealing - explicitly and repeatedly and in simple declarative sentences - with degrees of freedom.

Yep - the Tesla in space analogy.
I'm dealing with "the ability to do otherwise".
As said, if you're not discussing "the ability to do otherwise" then you are not being relevant to anything I've put forward.
If you are equating "degrees of freedom" to "the ability to do otherwise" then we are talking the same thing, only you have a looooong way to go to put any meaningful argument together beyond those words.

Logical levels.

Anything more than handwaving to offer here?

Physical facts.

The physical facts being... what?
The observations that you think show an ability to do otherwise, and that I would claim show merely the appearance of an ability to do otherwise?

Extrapolations and extensions and heuristic analogies from the engineering degrees of freedom no one has any problem recognizing in simple objects and low level patterns.

More handwaving.

Freedom in this view is not a supernatural status, that something either has or has not. It's not on or off like a light bulb or a creationist's "life". It's a product of a physically deterministic universe, not a defiance of it.

So?
We can call it anything we want.
The fact remains that if, in a deterministic universe, there is no ability to do otherwise (as argued), in that everything is on a path set in stone at the dawn of time, then what you refer to as "freedom" is not an actual ability to do otherwise, and at best is merely the appearance of being able to do otherwise.
If you are only concerned with that appearance, feel free to continue being irrelevant to my argument.
If, however, you want to argue against my argument - as you seem to have been doing for the past 40 pages or so - then you need to at least be addressing the same thing.

 

[Baldeee]

For the seventh time, as I try once more to dumb it down enough for you:
In drawing the conclusion that a system's being physically deterministic - unable to contravene chains of cause and effect - excludes freedom of behavior.

Noone is claiming it excludes freedom of behaviour in the manner you understand "freedom".
Even a Tesla in orbit has such.
Why would you think the assumptions have excluded that.
All it excludes is any ability to do otherwise, not any perceived ability of future actions to take one of a number of possible options.

In claiming that an observation of an ability to do otherwise within a deterministic universe is necessarily illusion.
And so forth.

Well, it is an illusion.
What else do you call something that appears to be one thing yet operates in a way that actually excludes the way it appears?

As always before, explicitly and repeatedly and in simple sentences anyone can read: I don't.

So you don't disagree with any of the premises?
You only disagree with the conclusion?

Okay, so let's dumb it down enough for you:
P1: deterministic interactions are not free.
P2: a system built from deterministic interactions is not free.
P3: the will is such a system.
C: the will is not free.

Or is this still too much for you to comprehend?
Do you consider the argument valid?
Do you agree with the premises?
Where in that argument is the assumption that "free" is supernatural?
What if to be "free" is to be indeterministic... do you still see within P1 to P3 the assumption that "free" is supernatural?

You keep rephrasing that, dodging aspects of earlier formulations you apparently can sense are hiding trouble.

My original formulation used the phrase "can not do other than it must" but they are equivalent.
So no, I don't rephrase in a manner that alters meaning.

The reason is that you aren't actually making sense.

No, the reason you think that is that you can't make sense of it.
Others can, and others do.

It's not a "conclusion" - of your argument or anyone's - that a deterministic universe has no "ability to do otherwise": it's in the definition of "deterministic".

My initial formulation did not assume that the universe was deterministic.
Only that the will was a system built from deterministic interactions.
Are you sure you even read the initial formulation, before jumping to your misconception that it assumes "free" to be supernatural?
Because it really doesn't come across that you have.

But we aren't discussing the freedom of will of the universe, whatever that would be.
As soon as the focus narrows to the entity of interest - a human being, making decisions in real time according to information acquired in real time - we observe that this entity is in fact making decisions and acting on them in real time according to information acquired in real time. That is among its abilities.

Computers make decisions based on real time information all the time.
Even my house's thermostat has that ability.
So are we to conclude that these have free will?
Or are you going to handwave about logical levels, and complexity?

Necessarily, then, it has the ability to make decisions according to information - meaning at least two different courses of action are within its abilities prior to its becoming informed.

As does a thermostat, or a Tesla in space.

So whichever way it is going to decide, it possesses an ability to do otherwise meantime.

No, it doesn't.
What it possesses is an awareness that it thinks it can do otherwise irrespective of information received.
What it possesses is an awareness of what it thinks are possible futures, and uses that awareness as part of the inputs in the next moments.
It judges, you judge, the ability to do otherwise on that awareness of what it thinks are possible futures.
But they are just that... an awareness of what it thinks are possible futures.
The actual future, in a deterministic universe, is already decided.
There is no ability to do otherwise.

It actually decides according to the information it acquires, in other words.

It processes based on inputs, yes.
Just like a computer.
A thermostat.
A Tesla in orbit.

(Which points to yet another location of your assumption of supernatural freedom - this ability to do otherwise, bound as it is by natural law and never to result in doing, is not in your view freedom).

The original formulation never mentions natural law, never assumes the universe is deterministic, and never includes an assumption, hidden or otherwise, that the ability to do otherwise is supernatural.

Note that by assumption (of physics, in this case) there is no indeterminacy involved - the same information would produce the same decision every time, and perfect knowledge of that future information would allow perfect prediction of the decision (within quantum uncertainty and similar irrelevant complications).

Agreed.
You understand the nature of determinism as it applies to the past, it seems.
You just fail to understand it with regard the future, in that a deterministic universe is set out in stone from the initial moment to the last.
Every moment is theoretically 100% predictable.
But if you can see within that the ability to do otherwise then we are not talking about the same thing, and your notion of "freedom" is as relevant as an orbiting Tesla to the argument you're trying to rebut.

 

[Quantum Quack]

To prove I can do other wise I shall write the word "dog" on the next line.
cat

ok... did I prove my point?

 

[Baldeee]

To prove I can do other wise I shall write the word "dog" on the next line.
cat

ok... did I prove my point?

Only if you judge your "ability to do otherwise" by how it appears.
When you wrote the first sentence you could imagine multiple futures, one of which no doubt included you typing the word "dog", another which included you typing the word "cat".
So it appeared to you at that time that you could indeed do otherwise than what you stated you would do.
But in a deterministic world, irrespective of what futures you may imagine there to be, no matter what apparently possible futures you could imagine (and what futures you didn't imagine), only one of them had been determined at the outset of time itself.
And you imagining those other apparent futures was also set in stone.
Your "choice" was set in stone.
Did we know what it would be?
No.
Could we predict what it might be?
To a degree, perhaps.
Does that mean you actually could do otherwise, though?
No, only that to you it appeared as though you could.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The notion of free will understood as the ability to do otherwise is a metaphysical pie in the sky. We do what we do and we can't empirically verify that we can do otherwise or could have done otherwise than we have.
So, no resolution will ever be achieved through rational debate.
Ergo, debating it is irrational.

Yeah, well, we're free to do it.

Exactly.
EB

 

[Quantum Quack]

Only if you judge your "ability to do otherwise" by how it appears.
When you wrote the first sentence you could imagine multiple futures, one of which no doubt included you typing the word "dog", another which included you typing the word "cat".
So it appeared to you at that time that you could indeed do otherwise than what you stated you would do.
But in a deterministic world, irrespective of what futures you may imagine there to be, no matter what apparently possible futures you could imagine (and what futures you didn't imagine), only one of them had been determined at the outset of time itself.
And you imagining those other apparent futures was also set in stone.
Your "choice" was set in stone.
Did we know what it would be?
No.
Could we predict what it might be?
To a degree, perhaps.
Does that mean you actually could do otherwise, though?
No, only that to you it appeared as though you could.

You may make any claim you like when it is impossible to verify or deny.
However the most important thing to realize is that a decision is being made, which implies that alternatives are being considered. To simply claim that it is a self deception and that those alternatives were not so, the decision being unnecessary ( even if a life time could be involved in the making) and expect others to agree with you is you own form of self deception.

Of course for you to believe in the form of limited determinism that you do, any need to make a decision is an illusion of freedom.
I use the word limited for a reason.
Limited by excessive simplification, over generalization with out any mechanisms or methodology offered to support the mere notion of cause and effect being a determining factor in a decision by a self determining actor, when the causes and the effects are both infinite in complexity with neither ever being able to be "determined" in away that could possibly lead to any verification or validation of the ongoing self deception of over 7 billion, self determining people.
====
Have you considered for example that limiting yourself to binary logic is unnecessarily stupefying?
Yes or no vs Yes, No or Neither.
Perhaps seeing in black and white is all that is necessary but surely seeing in color would be more interesting, yes?

 

[Baldeee]

You may make any claim you like when it is impossible to verify or deny.

The argument is what is.
If you think the premises sound and the argument valid then you should accept the conclusion.
It's no more difficult than that.

However the most important thing to realize is that a decision is being made, which implies that alternatives are being considered.

No-one disputes a decision is being made.
What is being disputed is what it means to make a decision.

To simply claim that it is a self deception and that those alternatives were not so, the decision being unnecessary ( even if a life time could be involved in the making) and expect others to agree with you is you own form of self deception.

You are unfortunately making leaps and jumping to conclusions that aren't there.
None disputes that we try to imagine future possibilities.
Nome disputes that we make decisions based on those imagined futures.
The inputs our decisions includes those projections, those imaginings.
Those imaginings were predetermined, though, as is the ultimate decision.

Of course for you to believe in the form of limited determinism that you do, any need to make a decision is an illusion of freedom.

"limited determinism"?
There is just determinism (if that is the scenario being discussed).
I don't believe the universe is deterministic, though.
But within such a scenario, any decision is indeed an illusion of freedom, unless we judge freedom by appearance.

I use the word limited for a reason.
Limited by excessive simplification, over generalization with out any mechanisms or methodology offered to support the mere notion of cause and effect being a determining factor in a decision by a self determining actor, when the causes and the effects are both infinite in complexity with neither ever being able to be "determined" in away that could possibly lead to any verification or validation of the ongoing self deception of over 7 billion, self determining people.

Then I suggest a course in physics, maths, and philosophy.
Determinism is what it is.
It is seemingly a simplification to how the universe works, now that we have uncovered QM, but it is hardly an "excessive simplification" but rather the understood nature of physics until QM reared its head.
Other the that, you are arguing from ignorance , popularity, and no small amount of personal incredulity.
When you want to move away from such obvious fallacies, and actually post an argument, let me know.

Have you considered for example that limiting yourself to binary logic is unnecessarily stupefying?

Where are you thinking I am limiting myself to binary logic?

Yes or no vs Yes, No or Neither.
Perhaps seeing in black and white is all that is necessary but surely seeing in color would be more interesting, yes?

Whatever colour you want to see in is irrelevant to the dialogue of the programme you're watching.

 

[Write4U]

I don't believe the universe is deterministic, though.

According to Bohmian Mechanics the world is purely deterministic.
Where did Bohm go wrong in his analysis?

In an otherwise purely deterministic universe, I am confused by an a priori assumption that humans are intellectually exempt from determinism, because we can think? Does this hold for all "brained" organisms?
If not, why not?

 

[Quantum Quack]

The argument is what is.
If you think the premises sound and the argument valid then you should accept the conclusion.
It's no more difficult than that.

the premises are not sound and the conclusion is unable to be verified.
If A = B and B = C then A = C relies on being able to determine what "A" is and by your own admission A is unable to be determined. ( due to complexity) Neither B or C can be determined leaving us with a whole pile of indeterminable nonsense.
The starting conditions as with all subsequent conditions are unable to be determined. Every single so called deterministic step is unable to be determined yet you claim that a decision has been predetermined.
Perhaps it is a compelling fascination with "butterflies" that can somehow determine the indeterminable "hurricane" that has captured your imagination and determines your next post in response to this one...perhaps...

No-one disputes a decision is being made.
What is being disputed is what it means to make a decision.

A decision is being made to choose from alternatives perceived to be present or not to choose at all based on one criteria - self benefit. The actor is freely able to choose according to his own measure of what benefits him the most. To prove your form of determinism you would have to show that a human being repeatedly chooses contrary to his self benefit.

You are unfortunately making leaps and jumping to conclusions that aren't there.
None disputes that we try to imagine future possibilities.
Nome disputes that we make decisions based on those imagined futures.
The inputs our decisions includes those projections, those imaginings.
Those imaginings were predetermined, though, as is the ultimate decision.

You can say this as many times as you like but with out presenting evidence to support it other than mere logic it can only be relegated to being purely imaginary and itself a deception. A pseudo science no more persuasive than a religious argument that states God is the only cause of all things.

"limited determinism"?
There is just determinism (if that is the scenario being discussed).
I don't believe the universe is deterministic, though.
But within such a scenario, any decision is indeed an illusion of freedom, unless we judge freedom by appearance.

Which immediately should tell you that the scenario you are postulating is terribly flawed. Because there is ample evidence to support the notion of self determination in healthy Humans. As there is evidence to support a diminished self determination in unhealthy humans. ( aka , addictions, psychosis, stroke, etc)

If you have ever had to transfer "power of attorney" due to health reasons ( As I had to 30 odd years ago) you would understand what it is like to be deprived of self determination and what it takes to regain that power of attorney.

When you want to move away from such obvious fallacies, and actually post an argument, let me know.

There is nothing to argue, as you have failed to present a case for your version of determinism that is strong enough to negate the self evident self determination demonstrated over eons of human history.

Self determination is just a part of the deterministic scenario. It is still determinism. The question only is what or who is causing what?

There is no reason to exclude or other wise limit self determination from a deterministic universe. There is no evidence to support such exclusion but ample evidence to include it.
So when you can come up with a proper refutation I am all ears...

 

[Write4U]

If A = B and B = C then A = C relies on being able to determine what "A" is and by your own admission A is unable to be determined. ( due to complexity) Neither B or C can be determined leaving us with a whole pile of indeterminable nonsense.

The question is not if humans are unable to determine A in the first place, we are only the observer.
Question is, in a deterministic universe is extant complexity a problem for universal mathematics to be able to determine A? I doubt it. Seems to me that wherever we look there is no indeterminable nonsense employed by the universe, ever.

If it does, the fault lies with the observer's limitations.

 

[Quantum Quack]

The question is not if humans are unable to determine A in the first place, we are only the observer.
Question is, in a deterministic universe is extant complexity a problem for universal mathematics to be able to determine A? I doubt it. Seems to me that wherever we look there is no indeterminable nonsense employed by the universe, ever.

If it does, the fault lies with the observer's limitations.

On the presumption of a finite limit when in fact infinity is what is involved.

 

[iceaura]

So you judge "the ability to do otherwise" by observation?

Not "judge". Measure, describe, discover, etc.
Also by experiment, and description of mechanism, and theoretical analysis, and so forth.
Of course.

The actual future, in a deterministic universe, is already decided.
There is no ability to do otherwise.

There is no ability for the universe to do otherwise. OK. That's irrelevant.
We are not talking about the universe having freedom of will.
- - - - -

Noone is claiming it excludes freedom of behaviour in the manner you understand "freedom".
Even a Tesla in orbit has such.

No, it doesn't. It lacks such abilities as decision making at the human level.

Okay, so let's dumb it down enough for you:
P1: deterministic interactions are not free.
P2: a system built from deterministic interactions is not free.
P3: the will is such a system.
C: the will is not free.

Now you have altered the original argument dramatically, by explicitly throwing the deterministic exclusion of freedom into the premises. You even have the word "free" spelled out in the premises.

Humorously enough, you just spent forty pages denying you were assuming that - including directing all manner of insults at me for noting that you were in fact assuming that.

But if you can see within that the ability to do otherwise then we are not talking about the same thing, and your notion of "freedom" is as relevant as an orbiting Tesla to the argument you're trying to rebut.

The argument I am dealing with assumes freedom in a physically deterministic system must be supernatural. I'm not trying to rebut that - if someone wants to stand by that assumption, then there is no rebuttal to the argument. It's valid.
But if they don't - - - - there is another way to look at the situation.

My initial formulation did not assume that the universe was deterministic.

So?

Are you sure you even read the initial formulation, before jumping to your misconception that it assumes "free" to be supernatural?

And I'm still reading it. You're stuck rather badly.

You just fail to understand it with regard the future, in that a deterministic universe is set out in stone from the initial moment to the last.
Every moment is theoretically 100% predictable.

That's not necessarily the case in a physically deterministic universe - quantum theory objects, as does chaos if carefully treated, Heisenberg uncertainty, a few other factors - but it doesn't matter if you are responding to my posts. I have stipulated to a physically determined universe, and it makes no difference to my posting whether such a universe is "set in stone" or not.
- - - - -

What you refer to the ability to do otherwise is nothing but an assessment of future possibilities, made in an absence of information.

Hold that thought. Strike "nothing but" (it's confusing you). Note that the assessment is accurate - until the driver receives more information, in the future, they have the ability to stop and the ability to go depending on what that information will be. That's two mutually exclusive doings - no matter which is going to be done, the ability to do otherwise exists at that moment.

 

[iceaura]

I'm sure you will waffle on while hand-waving about logical levels,

Yep.
You may eventually pay attention, after all.
You may even notice why you consistently change the example from one of very simple human decision, directly relevant to the thread, to vaguely referenced bricks and driverless Teslas in space.

 

[Baldeee]

According to Bohmian Mechanics the world is purely deterministic.
Where did Bohm go wrong in his analysis?

His is but one interpretation.

In an otherwise purely deterministic universe, I am confused by an a priori assumption that humans are intellectually exempt from determinism, because we can think? Does this hold for all "brained" organisms?
If not, why not?

I would be similarly confused.

 

[Write4U]

On the presumption of a finite limit when in fact infinity is what is involved.

Does it matter?

Just because the Hilbert Hotel is infinite, does that make it less of a hotel with countable rooms and people?

 

[Write4U]

His is but one interpretation.

And gaining renewed interest afforded by increasing knowledge because it clears up several conflicts in current mainstream science. IMO, Bohm advances a hard deterministic perspective. I particularly like his views on "Potential" and the "Implicate order", which determines what potential is to become unfolded in physical reality.

I would be similarly confused.

I guess I believe in hard determinism. I believe that the probability factor offers sufficient freedom without infringing on strict individual cause and effect.

 

[Baldeee]

the premises are not sound and the conclusion is unable to be verified.

Okay, which premise do you find unsound?
That a deterministic interaction is one that can not do other than it must (or "has no ability to do otherwise")?
That a system built from deterministic interactions is not itself deterministic?
That the will is not such a system?
Which one do you disagree with?

If A = B and B = C then A = C relies on being able to determine what "A" is and by your own admission A is unable to be determined.

No, A=C relies on A=B and B=C.
One does not need to determine what A is.
It is logically valid that if A=B and B=C then A=C.
So do you have an issue with the validity of the logic as well?

( due to complexity) Neither B or C can be determined leaving us with a whole pile of indeterminable nonsense.

Again, no need to know what B or C are for the logic to be valid.

The starting conditions as with all subsequent conditions are unable to be determined. Every single so called deterministic step is unable to be determined yet you claim that a decision has been predetermined.

This follows directly from the premises.
One does not need to establish every step, or even any steps, once you have accepted the premises.
The rest is just a matter of logic.
So which premise(s) do you have issue with?

Perhaps it is a compelling fascination with "butterflies" that can somehow determine the indeterminable "hurricane" that has captured your imagination and determines your next post in response to this one...perhaps...

I am confused as to why you allude to chaos theory, when chaos theory is applicable to a fully deterministic system?

A decision is being made to choose from alternatives perceived to be present or not to choose at all based on one criteria - self benefit.

The inputs to a decision are numerous and varied.
Self benefit is what we might call one, perhaps, if we simplify it to a single input.

The actor is freely able to choose according to his own measure of what benefits him the most.

You beg the question with "freely".

To prove your form of determinism you would have to show that a human being repeatedly chooses contrary to his self benefit.

No I don't.
You simply need to understand what determinism is.
Look it up on wiki if you're in any doubt.
Either you accept that the universe is deterministic, or you don't.
If you don't then what do you consider it to be?
Probabilistic?
If so, how do you see randomness allowing the ability to do otherwise where strict determinism does not?

You can say this as many times as you like but with out presenting evidence to support it other than mere logic it can only be relegated to being purely imaginary and itself a deception. A pseudo science no more persuasive than a religious argument that states God is the only cause of all things.

So which premise do you disagree with?
You haven't actually said, so which is it, and what is it that you disagree about?
That a deterministic interaction is one that can not do other than it must (or "has no ability to do otherwise")?
That a system built from deterministic interactions is not itself deterministic?
That the will is not such a system?

Which immediately should tell you that the scenario you are postulating is terribly flawed. Because there is ample evidence to support the notion of self determination in healthy Humans. As there is evidence to support a diminished self determination in unhealthy humans. ( aka , addictions, psychosis, stroke, etc)

Noone disputes this.
The question is whether what we call "self determination" is actually the ability to do otherwise, or just the appearance of being able to do otherwise.
Arguing that some have a diminished self-determination is neither here nor there, as if self-determination is merely the appearance of being able to do otherwise then it stands to reason that some may have a lesser appearance than others.

If you have ever had to transfer "power of attorney" due to health reasons ( As I had to 30 odd years ago) you would understand what it is like to be deprived of self determination and what it takes to regain that power of attorney.

Again, you're just providing evidence that there is something we refer to as self-determination, not whether that self-determination is an actual ability to do otherwise.

There is nothing to argue, as you have failed to present a case for your version of determinism that is strong enough to negate the self evident self determination demonstrated over eons of human history.

And you are again failing to understand the argument - that noone disputes the existence of what you call self-determination, only whether it is an actual ability to do otherwise or merely the appearance of being able to do otherwise.
Until you can start to address that matter, you're not being relevant.

Self determination is just a part of the deterministic scenario. It is still determinism. The question only is what or who is causing what?

No, the question is whether what we call self-determination is an actual ability to do otherwise or merely the appearance of being able to do otherwise.

There is no reason to exclude or other wise limit self determination from a deterministic universe. There is no evidence to support such exclusion but ample evidence to include it.
So when you can come up with a proper refutation I am all ears...

Noone refutes the existence of what we call self-determination, Quantum Quack.
When you want to be relevant to the discussion at hand, rather than raising red herrings, let me know.

 

[Baldeee]

Not "judge". Measure, describe, discover, etc.
Also by experiment, and description of mechanism, and theoretical analysis, and so forth.
Of course.

No, you judge that it is the actual ability to do otherwise by its appearance.
What you then do is measure, describe, discover its appearance.
At no point does anything you have offered actually address whether it is more than its appearance, whether it is the actual ability to do otherwise.

There is no ability for the universe to do otherwise. OK. That's irrelevant.
We are not talking about the universe having freedom of will.

So you think that in a deterministic universe there can be a small part within it that can be indeterministic?
Because it is the deterministic nature of the system that means that it is set in stone.
Any deterministic system, be it the universe or a small part within it.

No, it doesn't. It lacks such abilities as decision making at the human level.

Decision making is just the name of a process.
Unless you wish to beg the question, you'll have to offer more than a label.

Now you have altered the original argument dramatically, by explicitly throwing the deterministic exclusion of freedom into the premises. You even have the word "free" spelled out in the premises.

I haven't altered anything dramatically.
From post #130:
P1: if something is determined then it can not do other than it must.
P2: systems built from determined interactions are themselves determined.
P3: the mind and will are systems built from determined interactions.
Conclusion: the mind and will can not do other than they must.

Compare that to the above:
P1: deterministic interactions are not free.
P2: a system built from deterministic interactions is not free.
P3: the will is such a system.
C: the will is not free.

I have merely exchanged "not do other than it must" with "not free", and a few inconsequential differences.
So I again question whether you ever read the initial formulation, or ever understood it.

Humorously enough, you just spent forty pages denying you were assuming that - including directing all manner of insults at me for noting that you were in fact assuming that.

You, from the outset, assumed I was assuming that freedom was supernatural.
There was, and is, nothing in the original formulation - which says nothing about the nature of the universe - that assumes as you claim it does.
Only when discussing specifically the deterministic universe can one claim that the premises make that assumption, and even then they do not, although it would be a conclusion.
You have failed to grasp this over the past 40 pages.

The argument I am dealing with assumes freedom in a physically deterministic system must be supernatural. I'm not trying to rebut that - if someone wants to stand by that assumption, then there is no rebuttal to the argument. It's valid.
But if they don't - - - - there is another way to look at the situation.

Then you are arguing a strawman, since no argument yet presented assumes that freedom in a physically deterministic system must be supernatural.
It is, of course, a conclusion one can reach from the first two premises, as the original formulation does with regard the will.

So?

Then it offered room for the ability to do otherwise ("freeedom") to not be contrary to the laws of nature.
Thus one can simply not claim that there is an assumption that such freedom must be supernatural.
But as I thought, for you not to recognise this shows how woeful your understanding is, and continues to be.

And I'm still reading it. You're stuck rather badly.

The only thing I'm stuck with is reading responses from someone who clearly doesn't understand the logic that they're discussing.

That's not necessarily the case in a physically deterministic universe - quantum theory objects, as does chaos if carefully treated, Heisenberg uncertainty, a few other factors - but it doesn't matter if you are responding to my posts.

Quantum theory does not object in any way, because either one assumes that it is wholly deterministic (e.g. Bohmian mechanics, as Write4U offered above) or it is assumed to be indeterministic and thus simply not a consideration if one is assuming a physically deterministic universe.
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is also a matter of measurement, not reality itself.
As such it only affects our practical ability to know beforehand what the future is, whether in a deterministic universe or as part of an indeterministic one.
The theoretical predetermination of the deterministic universe remains in tact: reality would be on a course set in stone.
So yes, it would be the case in a physically deterministic universe, and it is thus something you are going to have to deal with.

I have stipulated to a physically determined universe, and it makes no difference to my posting whether such a universe is "set in stone" or not.

No, because you are only concerned with the degrees of freedom akin to a Tesla in space, not whether something is able to do otherwise.

Hold that thought. Strike "nothing but" (it's confusing you). Note that the assessment is accurate - until the driver receives more information, in the future, they have the ability to stop and the ability to go depending on what that information will be. That's two mutually exclusive doings - no matter which is going to be done, the ability to do otherwise exists at that moment.

No, it doesn't exist at the moment.
It's like a train on a track coming up to a junction.
You would argue that on seeing the junction the train has the ability to go in either direction.
But the direction it takes is already set in stone.
The train might not yet know which path it will take, but reality does, the universe does, the direction set in stone.
You see that as the train having freedom.
I don't.

 

[Write4U]

This may add a new perspective to the concept of determinism. Good stuff.

Common complaint: Bell's theorem rules out hidden variable theories.
Response: No, it rules out local hidden variable theories - hidden variable theories are fine if they involve faster-than-light interactions.

i.e. entanglement.

John Bell himself was a fan of pilot wave theories as this 1986 quote demonstrates