No.
And yet all describable physical phenomena - including everything describable as a cause or an effect - emerge (eventually) from a substrate of quantum interactions.
You don't have a girlfriend, do you?
That is not the definition of deterministic in the argument; that is the definition of what it means to be free. Determinism means determinism. A property of a deterministic system, when one understands what it means, is that there is no room to do otherwise. It doesn’t mean that if you have something with the property of not being able to do otherwise then it is deterministic.
Yet you are not abiding by it.
Specific outcome as in the one observed. And what is the cause of that specific outcome from a probabilistic process rather than any other specific outcome. A probability function won’t be it, as that is just a description of the frequency of outcomes over an infinite number of replays. What actually causes one specific outcome rather than another? In a probabilistic process there is no cause, otherwise known as random, even if the outcomes adhere to some probability function.
Please drop this semantic nonsense. Your efforts to try to paper over your misunderstanding of what determinism is are now boring.
You need to distinguish between laws of chance due to subjective lack of information, and inherent probabilistic nature of the universe. The former is quite acceptable in a deterministic universe, the latter is mutually exclusive with a deterministic universe. You shouldn’t really need to be informed of this. It shouldn’t be news to you.
He did, but is backtracking in his own inimitable way. Yet your understanding of what was agreed to is flawed.
Not if it relies on probabilistic nature of your “deterministic universe” (and I put it in quotes as I no longer believe you are talking about an actual deterministic universe).
Nope, nothing overlooked.
States aren’t illusion, and I have never said they are. Your straw man. What could be illusory is how they appear to us. If they appear differently to us than they are, and specifically if they appear to offer the opposite of what they can offer, I would classify those interpretations as illusory. As already explained. Multiple times.
There’s no losing track, but thanks for your concern. If you think we have been then it may be that you haven’t quite been keeping up. Might explain a few things.
And all you have done so far is subsume conclusions into assumptions, or maybe taken subsequent arguments that build on the initial conclusion, seen it now stated as a premise, and cried foul, ignoring, as you tend to do, why your claim is fallacious.
You mean the occasions when you’ve had to reformulate arguments to make your point? Or reworded quotes to do so? Or simply taken subsequent arguments that do use them as premises, you thereby ignoring that they are themselves already conclusions.
And that’s a different argument, starting from the nature of a deterministic interaction. It doesn’t start with the assumption that there is no freedom in a deterministic universe, as you accuse. There is scope in that argument, specifically by questioning premise 2, to argue that a system built from deterministic interactions can be free, even if a specific interaction is not.
Quantum interactions are inherently indeterministic (unless one goes for the “hidden variable” interpretation) and as such their nature is excluded from the universe we are considering.
You are mixing definitions. Again, no wonder you are accusing left right and centre of “supernatural freedom” if you do that. The definition of deterministic is not “can not do other than it must”.
That is the conclusion, yes.
Yet your understanding of the deterministic universe is wrong, you are using a definition no one has posited, and in as much as you example and rely on inherently probabilistic matters in any rebuttal, such rebuttals are irrelevant. Because we are not talking about our universe, or any universe in which there is inherent probability, but a deterministic universe. Which you accepted as a premise.
I pick this choice as my preferred universe. lol
They're lecturing
and a human MUST self determine or die trying....
This is puzzling...
Not according to your definition of deterministic. (The probabilities, your source of confusion, determine them).
Which is determined by the interactions.
That's not how probability works in quantum theory. That's how it is introduced, heuristically, in an introductory class in probability and statistics.
In quantum theory the cause(s) is described by the mathematical equations, and determines the outcome - it's true that from our macroscopic perspective we have no adequate metaphor or analogy to bring to bear, so comprehension is both difficult and limited, but that is not relevant here.
Certainly confusing you. Ok - I'll drop it. As I noted long ago, when warning it off, the muddles of quantum theory make no difference to the thread topic.
Bizarre. You're not joking.
They don't appear to me, the researchers who investigate them, the instruments that record them, and the entities that react to them, as anything other than observed states.
I quoted your assumptions, and pointed at them.
There is one argument under discussion here, just one, and it's not different from itself.
It is a premise of that argument - that one argument, the only one at issue.
Never did that. You lost track of your own argument, and didn't recognize it, is all.
Your language has gone slippery, as before when you went haywire - you seem to be trying again to have me claim that someone has assumed the existence of supernatural freedom.
Yes it does. Read up on it.
Yes, according to the definition of deterministic. If it is not completely determined it is not deterministic. And probabilistic outcomes are not completely determined.
Then they are not free, per the definition, but they are also not deterministic. You are confusing the definitions of free and deterministic, presumably in your obsession with the "supernatural assumption".
Not completely, hence not deterministic.
That is the definition of probability, whether in quantum theory or anywhere else.
And the specific outcome is not fully determined by that cause. It could be any number of outcomes from within the probability function. Hence not deterministic.
Why do you think the argument posted by baldeee et al start with the assumption of deterministic universe? So no, you didn't warn it off, and you don't get any moral high-ground from it. Rather pathetic attempt, to be honest.So you continue to be dishonest, by not starting with the original argument but one that quite obviously starts with the conclusion of the previous. You can't help yourself, can you.
No, I'm not.
That's not the state of the driver. They only have the capability of one of those things. The others are counterfactual assessments of what could be possible if the inputs to the system were different than what they actually are. But this has been explained to you, and I no longer have any intention of rehashing.
Because they are not examining things from a philosophical point of view.
Already dealt with.
That's an argument that was posted here, one subsequent to the conclusions already reached. But you know this.
Convince yourself of that if you must. The dishonesty of what you did is on record.
No slipperiness, and I never went haywire. And I don't seem to be trying anything of the sort. Your comprehension is letting you down. Yet again.
I know what you claimed, and I know what you think you have supported it with, and each time your claim has been shown to be fallacious.
You have offered nothing to support it. Nothing to support the nature of the freedom being any different than that found in a thermostat. Which to me, and others, is a trivial nature of freedom. You have suggested it. You have appealed to complexity. And... nope, that's it. In fact you've used every opportunity to simply not examine it further. Instead of heading down the route you want you spin round and return to where you don't want to be.
And yet still here you are, trying to beat down a door with fallacious claims that we're assuming "supernatural freedom". You haven't grown, and you have offered no insight, just more of the same tiresome nonsense from you.
sounds like it's akin to saying that the universe is inherantly mathematics.
You do realize that the mass/energy of the Universe is not encoded.
Perhaps you know of some uncaused events that Sarkus is rerrerring to?
Potentially everything since the quantum world ultimately rules everything. Quantum fluctuations, radioactive decay.
So we assume that the event is uncaused because we don't know the cause?
Actually I was reading up on spontaneous virtual particles emerging from the vacuum and how they appear to be un-caused. Appearances can be deceiving though. All the same I shall rest my case as I have found what I am looking for...and discussing causation for these virtual particles would go no where here.
Assuming a cause is a religious argument, then comes God as a first cause and then what caused God? If nothing caused God, the everything doesn't require a cause and you can take God out of the conversation.