Is free will possible in a deterministic universe?

[Baldeee]

Time to feed to the troll....

The only response you offer is what you have just posted... nada..

again you have not addressed why only one path...
and simply repeat what you have posted ad nauseum...
You have to explain why there can only be one path as the logic you are using is insufficient when dealing with living and learning human beings...

Lets take a simple deterministic system where the input is a number, the output is that number + 1, which is then the next input to the system.
So whatever starting condition (x) you begin with, there is always a singular possible output associated with it: x+1.
That output becomes the next input, so the following output is x+2, then x+3 etc.
Following?
So, from a given starting point, there is a single, predictable, and predetermined path that the system follows.
This is true of all deterministic systems.
This is what it means for a system to be deterministic: every time you have a given input to the system you have the same output, which is the next input to the system.
Follow the logic of it.
Once the system starts with its initial condition, where in this example do you see there being any other chain of predetermined inputs/outputs than the one perfectly described, and perfectly predictable, and predetermined, by the initial condition and the law of the system?
The very idea of having “multiple (infinite) predetermined potential pathways” is mutually exclusive to a deterministic system once it has started.
There is no potential for any other than the one pathway once the system begins.
Try it with the example given.
Input a starting condition, and then tell me who you think you can talk about there being others predetermined potential pathways.

I await your startling revelation of these multiple predetermined potential pathways.

 

[Michael 345]

2 hours later, my environment hasn't changed

I think you are sadly mistaken if you contend after 2 hours your environment has not changed

Lots of body functions have continued and just as a possible reason for you deciding to jog - your bladder is a little bit fuller

 

[DaveC426913]

I think you are sadly mistaken if you contend after 2 hours your environment has not changed

Lots of body functions have continued and just as a possible reason for you deciding to jog - your bladder is a little bit fuller

The point of the word 'environment' here is as a distinguisher from the body. (internal vs external)

That which is of the body is not out in the environment; that which is out in the environment is not in the body.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Time to feed to the troll....
Lets take a simple deterministic system where the input is a number, the output is that number + 1, which is then the next input to the system.
So whatever starting condition (x) you begin with, there is always a singular possible output associated with it: x+1.
That output becomes the next input, so the following output is x+2, then x+3 etc.
Following?
So, from a given starting point, there is a single, predictable, and predetermined path that the system follows.
This is true of all deterministic systems.
This is what it means for a system to be deterministic: every time you have a given input to the system you have the same output, which is the next input to the system.
Follow the logic of it.
Once the system starts with its initial condition, where in this example do you see there being any other chain of predetermined inputs/outputs than the one perfectly described, and perfectly predictable, and predetermined, by the initial condition and the law of the system?
The very idea of having “multiple (infinite) predetermined potential pathways” is mutually exclusive to a deterministic system once it has started.
There is no potential for any other than the one pathway once the system begins.
Try it with the example given.
Input a starting condition, and then tell me who you think you can talk about there being others predetermined potential pathways.

I await your startling revelation of these multiple predetermined potential pathways.

and if I refute your points will you just simply claim that you have addressed the issue and not enter a discussion on it?
It is easily refuted btw...

 

[Quantum Quack]

Time to feed to the troll...

And what do you mean by this statement when it is you who are trolling?

 

[Michael 345]

The point of the word 'environment' here is as a distinguisher from the body. (internal vs external)

That which is of the body is not out in the environment; that which is out in the environment is not in the body.

I understand the wording is a effort to divorce one from the other

Not possible. The environment is not static the air can become hot / cold / humid and affect the body

If the environment is a closed space, the space can be perceived claustrophobic

Even without a body, the dominoes of the environment stuff, are falling deterministically

 

[Quantum Quack]

Not possible. The environment is not static the air can become hot / cold / humid and affect the body

and it may influence the decisions made but certainly not control them.

 

[Baldeee]

and if I refute your points will you just simply claim that you have addressed the issue and not enter a discussion on it?
It is easily refuted btw...

If it is easily refuted, if you think you can show that an active deterministic system has many predetermined potential pathways, then that will indeed be worth discussing.
Offer your refutation and find out.
Note that if your refutation is along the lines of “well it doesn’t include the possibility of...” or anything else that is not actually a refutation but simply a complaint that it doesn’t offer the conclusion you want, then you will get the short shrift it deserves.

 

[iceaura]

Once the system starts with its initial condition, where in this example do you see there being any other chain of predetermined inputs/outputs than the one perfectly described, and perfectly predictable, and predetermined, by the initial condition and the law of the system?

Obviously the capabilities of the driver - including the driver's ability to choose between them, and either stop or go depending on the color of the traffic light - were all determined, in this universe we all assume to be deterministic according to your definition.

So what's your point? That a determined ability to choose between determined alternatives, observed and recorded as it is, somehow does not exist?

 

[DaveC426913]

I understand the wording is a effort to divorce one from the other
Not possible. The environment is not static the air can become hot / cold / humid and affect the body

Nobody said it can't change.
Are you suggesting that, if it doesn't change, a person can't decide to get up and jog?

Of course not. That would be silly.

The point being that free will means you don't need external stimuli.

 

[iceaura]

Any time you posit choice you imply the existence of alternatives, as in alternative outcomes.

Nobody said anything about "outcomes", except you guys when changing the examples and dodging the central issues.
We observe - not "posit" - the existence of three capabilities, two of which are mutually exclusive in employment. Stop/go/choose based on a criterion. We do that long before there are any "outcomes". Of course as soon as there is a relevant action and outcome the situation changes - in any system, deterministic or not. You can't eat your cake and have it too.

When you ask to consider the capabilities of driver to act in a given situation, you are either considering what the driver has done or will do in the future,

Nonsense. We are considering - observing, in the description, possibly by a computer with no human involved - what the driver can do right now. The driver has capabilities, and we observe them, at this time. Whether or not any of them ever have or ever will be employed, by the driver or anyone else, is irrelevant.

For an example that contains no reference to action, how is it that this non existent action is described being observed and recorded?

No action is described as being observed and recorded. Capabilities are described as being observed and recorded - not actions.

You guys are having a lot of trouble reading very simple sentences in English. Any idea why?

If all of your actions have been determined by the historical state of the universe, then your actions are actually a statement by the universe rather than yourself.

Your self is the means by which the universe made the statement. You keep forgetting that you are part of the universe - the universe does it, and you do it, same as. That's how it gets done. We observe that - it's not a guess.

The traffic light event that you present can be described in narrowly with limited detail, or it can be described completely with extreme detail.

Event? What "event" are you talking about? The traffic light is far in the future - not involved in any "event", and possibly never involved - we might know, we might not, no difference.

I described the example completely. Every relevant detail was specified. You have never dealt with it as described. Neither has any other naive materialist on this forum. Even when warned, alerted, to the issue, you somehow can't deal. Don't you think that's a bit odd?

 

[iceaura]

For example, let’s consider the scenario where we define freedom as “ability to do otherwise”, and now consider it within an indeterministic universe, one where thought creates a brand new causal chain.
Is the definition of freedom now assuming that it is supernatural?

Thought creates the subsequent causal chain in a deterministic universe as well. Thought is causal, and determines effects, like everything else.

And of course the answer is "yes" - the ability to do other than cause and effect or natural law enforces is supernatural.

 

[Baldeee]

Obviously the capabilities of the driver - including the driver's ability to choose between them, and either stop or go depending on the color of the traffic light - were all determined, in this universe we all assume to be deterministic according to your definition.

We agree that it is a deterministic system (A strictly and only leads to B, not to possibly B, possibly C, etc) and not merely that everything was caused.
i.e. deterministic causation, not probabilistic causation.

So what's your point? That a determined ability to choose between determined alternatives, observed and recorded as it is, somehow does not exist?

The ability to choose, as in the system of choice, is not, and never has been, in dispute.
The freedom within that system is.
To me, for reasons given many times before, that system by which a choice is reached has no freedom.
That's the point.

Thought creates the subsequent causal chain in a deterministic universe as well. Thought is causal, and determines effects, like everything else.

In the deterministic system that we have assumed the universe to be, thoughts do not create the subsequent causal chain, they are merely a link in an already existent chain that was predetermined from the outset.
In an indeterministic universe it might well be that thought actually does create the chain, that it is the initiator of the chain.
And in that way "ability to do otherwise" might exist in such a universe, because natural law might, in such a situation, allow it.

And of course the answer is "yes" - the ability to do other than cause and effect or natural law enforces is supernatural.

In such an indeterministic universe the answer would be "no", because "able to do otherwise" would not be against the laws of cause and effect of that universe, nor the natural laws of that universe.
And as such the definition itself does not assume anything supernatural.
You can only claim that it is supernatural by conclusion once you have premised the nature of the universe, the nature of the cause/effect and other pertinent aspects of the universe in question.

 

[Michael 345]

The point being that free will means you don't need external stimuli.

Agree free will does not require external stimuli

However since free will is non existent in a deterministic Universe it remains for the dominoes within the entity to fall in their determined sequence for a pre determined output

Had the entity received a predetermined external stimuli then there would be a different predetermined output

Want to change the future, walk back, add or subtract stimuli or rearrange the dominoes

 

[Quantum Quack]

However since free will is non existent in a deterministic Universe

ahh but it does... go figure..

 

[Capracus]

Nobody said anything about "outcomes", except you guys when changing the examples and dodging the central issues.
We observe - not "posit" - the existence of three capabilities, two of which are mutually exclusive in employment. Stop/go/choose based on a criterion. We do that long before there are any "outcomes". Of course as soon as there is a relevant action and outcome the situation changes - in any system, deterministic or not. You can't eat your cake and have it too.

Every action is an outcome of previous action, so when we speak of doing anything, we’re always talking about outcomes.

Nonsense. We are considering - observing, in the description, possibly by a computer with no human involved - what the driver can do right now. The driver has capabilities, and we observe them, at this time. Whether or not any of them ever have or ever will be employed, by the driver or anyone else, is irrelevant.

If a capability hasn’t been, or never will be employed, it never actually was a capability, only an imagined one.

No action is described as being observed and recorded. Capabilities are described as being observed and recorded - not actions.

The whole example is an examination of the capabilities of human action in a deterministic universe, so yes, it’s always about action of some kind.

You guys are having a lot of trouble reading very simple sentences in English. Any idea why?

You seem to have a lot of trouble understanding the implications of your own writing. Any idea why?

Your self is the means by which the universe made the statement. You keep forgetting that you are part of the universe - the universe does it, and you do it, same as. That's how it gets done. We observe that - it's not a guess.

I don’t disagree. The universe dictates the time and place for every action you take, just as it does for the Sun, the Moon and the stars. I wonder what time the Sun will decide to rise this Sunday?

Event? What "event" are you talking about? The traffic light is far in the future - not involved in any "event", and possibly never involved - we might know, we might not, no difference.

What event? How about the one involving a driver, a car and a traffic light you keep regurgitating ad nauseum.

I described the example completely. Every relevant detail was specified. You have never dealt with it as described. Neither has any other naive materialist on this forum. Even when warned, alerted, to the issue, you somehow can't deal. Don't you think that's a bit odd?

Being your favorite go to example, it seems that’s all we ever discuss with you. And contrary to your assertion, we always deal with it as described. Unfortunately though, you seem incapable understanding the implications of having your example occur in a determined system, so we seem destined to keep going in circles with this issue.

 

[iceaura]

Every action is an outcome of previous action, so when we speak of doing anything, we’re always talking about outcomes.

When we speak of a driver approaching a traffic light, that is the outcome. We are speaking of an outcome - the driver, car, light, and ongoing behavior that does not change during our moment of observation, are all among the outcome of past causation.
The only doing in my example is an act of observation of the driver's capabilities - and that is done, possibly, by a machine. Nothing else changes.

Being your favorite go to example, it seems that’s all we ever discuss with you.

You have never - despite repeated invitation - discussed that example. Neither has any other naive materialist here - not one.

I don’t disagree. The universe dictates the time and place for every action you take,

If you agreed with me, you would agree that the person dictates the time and place (of, not "for") every action the person takes in this example. The change in vocabulary - "person" for "universe" - would be meaningless, as the person is the part of the universe doing the dictating.

So clearly you do disagree, in several different ways. One is that you insist that some other part of the universe - not the driver - causes everything that we observe the driver doing. I insist that the driver is causing and doing what observation confirms the driver causing and doing. Another is that you repeatedly contrast the universe doing something with the driver doing it - as if these were different and mutually exclusive possibilities. I insist that the universe and the driver are not mutually exclusive, not even separate agents of causation in this example. The driver is the means by which the universe acts, in this example.

The whole example is an examination of the capabilities of human action in a deterministic universe, so yes, it’s always about action of some kind.

But you never deal with the example as posted, so what it's about has yet to come up for discussion in your posts.

What event? How about the one involving a driver, a car and a traffic light you keep regurgitating ad nauseum.

For some reason you don't want to tell me what event you are talking about. I don't know why, but it seems to be connected with all the changes and additions you made - again - to my deliberately simple example before you were willing to begin discussing it.

I suspect, after reading your posts, that you yourself don't know exactly what event you are talking about. You can't keep the timeline straight, you can't identify (or even locate) the causes involved, you have dismissed without acknowledgement the exact matters I pointed to as central to that example, and all these are significant factors in the posted example - apparently not in whatever you have decided to talk about instead, but it's hard to tell.
Like this:
There is no event involving a light or a car, in my illustrative example. The driver does nothing.
Here is your description of some event you want to discuss instead: "What event? How about the one involving a driver, a car and a traffic light you keep regurgitating - - "
I cannot reliably guess what event that is. If you can, now might be a good time.

Want to try again? Start by reading the example as posted, adding nothing. Then, if you want to discuss that example, make no changes in it first - add nothing, subtract nothing, employ the given vocabulary, discuss what is posted as it is posted. How hard can it be?

 

[Capracus]

When we speak of a driver approaching a traffic light, that is the outcome. We are speaking of an outcome - the driver, car, light, and ongoing behavior that does not change during our moment of observation, are all among the outcome of past causation.
The only doing in my example is an act of observation of the driver's capabilities - and that is done, possibly, by a machine. Nothing else changes.

How does a machine document the driver’s neurology and life experience, as well as the many other unseen causal elements that determine the driver’s action?

You have never - despite repeated invitation - discussed that example. Neither has any other naive materialist here - not one.

You’re high, we discuss it every time you bring it up.

If you agreed with me, you would agree that the person dictates the time and place (of, not "for") every action the person takes in this example. The change in vocabulary - "person" for "universe" - would be meaningless, as the person is the part of the universe doing the dictating.

The person doesn’t equal the universe, the person is an element of the universe. The person is simply following programmed instructions, and those instructions originate from the collective universal order.

So clearly you do disagree, in several different ways. One is that you insist that some other part of the universe - not the driver - causes everything that we observe the driver doing. I insist that the driver is causing and doing what observation confirms the driver causing and doing. Another is that you repeatedly contrast the universe doing something with the driver doing it - as if these were different and mutually exclusive possibilities. I insist that the universe and the driver are not mutually exclusive, not even separate agents of causation in this example. The driver is the means by which the universe acts, in this example.

The person is an agent of universal determination in the same way that an anus is a person’s agent in the act of personal defecation. You see how one is seen as subservient to the other?

But you never deal with the example as posted, so what it's about has yet to come up for discussion in your posts.

Again, I always deal with it , I’m dealing with it again with this post.

There is no event involving a light or a car, in my illustrative example. The driver does nothing.

Like I said earlier, you must be high. So now your denying that the central theme of your example has nothing to do with the actions of a driver, a car, and a traffic light. Sounds like you’ve attended one too many MAGA rallies.

 

[Quantum Quack]

The person is simply following programmed instructions, and those instructions originate from the collective universal order.

No that person is not...
As explained in the Andy Android thread, that persons programing becomes his own through learning.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/an...rmination-in-a-deterministic-universe.162373/

 

[Write4U]

Is free will possible in an imaginary world? Reality is but a controlled hallucination, where the brain makes a "best guess" and confirms it with know patterns.