Is free will possible in a deterministic universe?

[Vociferous]

I take it you understand the difference between the wave-function and the eventual observation following collapse thereof?
The wave-function can be deterministic, but if the eventual observation is not, it entirely negates the relevance of there being a wave-function that is deterministic, as its output is indeterministic, and we are only considering a universe that is deterministic.
The wave-function, deterministic or otherwise, is only relevant in an indeterministic universe.
And we are not discussing an indeterministic universe.

Further, how is anything a direct analog for free will if it has no observable impact upon the universe?
Are you claiming that free will has no direct impact?
For something to have no direct impact it is surely logically consistent with something that does not exist, would you not agree?
It becomes useless, meaningless, and of no relevance to anything whatsoever.
Is that what you consider free will to be?
Further - what mechanism would you assert for this non-impacting freewill?
What are you actually claiming it is other than the name of something imaginary?

I suspected that you have been moving your own goalposts, but now you're literally claiming your deterministic system doesn't allow for a completely deterministic process. Apparently only because it could lead to results you simply don't like (even though I've already stipulated those results have no impact on your supposed deterministic system, leaving it wholly deterministic). It's both hypocritical and intellectually dishonest, to deny things your own stipulation explicitly allows.

And again, it would be begging the question to deny a deterministic process just because you arbitrarily deny its relevance. I'm trying to play along with your nonsense stipulation, but only if you're intellectually honest enough to actually abide by YOUR OWN stipulation. The deterministic Schrodinger equation is relevant to our classical domain deterministic universe, so your claim that it's only relevant to "an indeterministic universe" is demonstrably false.

Do you believe that genuine free will (that I think you deem solely supernatural) has no impact on our deterministic classic universe? If so, that's your claim that it has no impact, I'm just playing along for the moment. There's stars beyond the cosmological horizon of our universe that have no meaningful impact on us. Are you making the absurd claim that that means they must not exist?

Again, you have been demanding that I'm not allowed to argue how I think free will operates, if it may run any risk of violating your ridiculous stipulations. So don't ask for something you demand we arduously avoid.

Not at all.
We can talk quite happily about how macro-scale phenomena cause other macro-scale phenomena quite comfortably, because we know in doing so we are only looking at the macro.
And we know that due to our lack of knowledge of micro-scale we can talk of things causing other things in a probabilistic manner.
None of that alters the argument, and merely speaks to how our language is most often based on how things appear as opposed to how things actually are.
Here, in this discussion, some of us are looking more closely at how things actually are in a deterministic universe.
If people want to stop simply at how things appear, they can do that, but I don't have to agree with them.

If you allow probabilistic causes in the macro domain, again, you are simply begging the question to arbitrarily deny them elsewhere. Probabilistic causes are how smoking or war actually cause death. Claiming either directly cause death, as a deterministic system's A=B, is only the appearance. You seem to have painted yourself into a corner. Happens when you're begging the question.

And be a meaningless, pointless phenomena logically consistent with something that doesn't exist?

And be at least as meaningful as stars that exist beyond the cosmological horizon.

I readily accept that anyone may define freewill in a manner that begs the question of its existence or not.
That is not what I have done, however.
And it is hardly begging the question to have a hidden premise that any freewill, if it is to be considered to exist, must do so in a meaningful manner.

Again, are you claiming that stars beyond the cosmological horizon do not exist?

 

[Vociferous]

No, they don’t say that, they say that it is assumed to be the case. Like I said before, there are no professional physicists who would portray the Copenhagen interpretation as a definitive explanation of the our underlying reality, especially considering that a pillar of the interpretation states that accurate empirical analysis of quantum states is not possible. Less than half the physicists in a poll favored the Copenhagen interpretation over other interpretations, but that doesn’t translate to it being considered a proven explanation of our underlying reality. The Copenhagen interpretation is empirically no more valid than it’s deterministic alternatives, and any honest physicist would acknowledge this fact.

So the reality among physicists regarding the subject, is that no faction is in a position to make a definitive claim on what QM actually describes.

Lots of straw men to unpack there. No one claimed that any interpretation of QM was "definitive" nor that there was a majority (I said "plurality", go look) in favor of any one.

But yes, if you don't understand how the Copenhagen interpretation accepts that the underlying reality is indeterministic, ignoring but not refuting all the citations I've already given you, then you seem incapable of understanding the Copenhagen interpretation (favored by many of the most prominent founders of QM) at all. You're arguing out of ignorance, which probably necessitates all the straw men.

The fact remains that the Copenhagen interpretation accepts the indeterministic results of QM at face value, without adding further unjustified and less parsimonious assumptions.

But the empirical observation doesn’t exclusively support those assumptions. Assuming fundamental indeterminacy doesn’t make it true, or even reasonably defensible by adherents.

Another straw man. No one claimed that observations "exclusively support" any interpretation. Only that the Copenhagen interpretation makes no assumptions beyond those empirical observations. You can take up the defensibility with those founders of QM.

Even the physicists who favor the Copenhagen interpretation will admit that they can’t accurately describe the complete dynamics of the quantum realm, they don’t even think they're knowable. All they know is that applying its rules yields practical results.

The Copenhagen interpretation is not equivalent to instrumentalism, which is listed as an alternative: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation#Alternatives
Again, please learn some physics.

Observations of QM can be assumed to be indeterministic, and can be justifiably assumed not to be, so to assume otherwise would be a sign of ignorance.

No, the actual, empirical, real-world results of a QM experiment are indeterministic. No one, even those who espouse deterministic interpretations, deny that brute fact. Otherwise, they could predict the result with 100% certainty, based on the initial experimental setup. By all means, waste your time trying to find that, and sifting through loads of crackpottery.

 

[Baldeee]

I suspected that you have been moving your own goalposts, but now you're literally claiming your deterministic system doesn't allow for a completely deterministic process.

No goalposts have been moved.
Equations are not a process.
A deterministic system is one where there is no probability involved in the outputs.
The universe has been premised as just such a deterministic system.

Apparently only because it could lead to results you simply don't like (even though I've already stipulated those results have no impact on your supposed deterministic system, leaving it wholly deterministic).

No, because that is what has been stipulated from the outset.
You have come in only relatively recently across the numerous threads on this matter, and are now trying to overturn the agreed assumption of the thread.

It's both hypocritical and intellectually dishonest, to deny things your own stipulation explicitly allows.

Indeed it is, but that is not what I'm doing.
It is ignorance, however, to try to stipulate something that is explicitly not allowed in the assumptions.
And that is what you're doing.

And again, it would be begging the question to deny a deterministic process just because you arbitrarily deny its relevance.

There's no arbitrary denial of its relevance.
The denial of relevance is because we are discussing the case of the universe as a deterministic system, in which probability has no place, and in which the Schrodinger equation, while deterministic in and of itself, can only lead to indeterministic outputs - i.e. probabilistic.
That denial is not arbitrary, but linked specifically to the agreed assumption of this thread.

I'm trying to play along with your nonsense stipulation, but only if you're intellectually honest enough to actually abide by YOUR OWN stipulation. The deterministic Schrodinger equation is relevant to our classical domain deterministic universe, so your claim that it's only relevant to "an indeterministic universe" is demonstrably false.

It is not relevant to a deterministic system, the nature of the universe agreed upon from the outset of this (and previous) threads.
It can only ever result in a probability function, even if arrived at deterministically.
It is the link between the equation and reality where the indeterminism arises, because Schrodinger's equation can only result in a probability function of outputs.
And if two different outputs can result from the same input to the system, it is by definition not a deterministic system.
That should really be the end of the matter.

Do you believe that genuine free will (that I think you deem solely supernatural) has no impact on our deterministic classic universe?

I certainly conclude that genuine freewill does not exist in a deterministic system, nor in any universe defined as such a system.

If so, that's your claim that it has no impact, I'm just playing along for the moment. There's stars beyond the cosmological horizon of our universe that have no meaningful impact on us. Are you making the absurd claim that that means they must not exist?

There's a difference between something that can not possibly exist and something that would have existed if only the inputs had been different.
There's also a difference between something that does not exist (for whatever reason), and something that does exist but which is simply logically consistent with not existing.
And with regard stars beyond the cosmological horizon, there's also a difference between something that can now no longer have any impact on us, and something that has never had an impact: the difference between something that is no longer part of a system but once was, and something that never was.
So please put your strawman away: I have not said that such stars do not exist.
You, however, are suggesting freewill might exist in a deterministic system but have no observable impact on the system.
As something that has no impact on the system, to the system it is meaningless, pointless, and logically consistent with something that does not exist.
Is this what you think freewill is?

Again, you have been demanding that I'm not allowed to argue how I think free will operates, if it may run any risk of violating your ridiculous stipulations. So don't ask for something you demand we arduously avoid.

Nonsense.
If you want to say how it operates (which I'm avidly awaiting your input) because in doing so it answers the question asked in this thread, then go for it.
If you think it requires some form of indeterministic output then your answer to this thread is "no", and feel free to debate with those who say "yes".

If you allow probabilistic causes in the macro domain, again, you are simply begging the question to arbitrarily deny them elsewhere.

I'm not allowing them in the macro.
I'm allowing the appearance of them due to lack of information / knowledge of the necessary detail to recognise them as deterministic and non-probabilistic.

Probabilistic causes are how smoking or war actually cause death. Claiming either directly cause death, as a deterministic system's A=B, is only the appearance. You seem to have painted yourself into a corner. Happens when you're begging the question.

No corner at all.
The probabilistic cause you refer to is the appearance, and must be the appearance, given the system is actually deterministic.
In such a system, if something is probabilistic it is simply due to lack of knowledge of the details.
Any consideration of the macro is only judged by appearance, not the necessary level of detail.

And be at least as meaningful as stars that exist beyond the cosmological horizon.

And when you can point to one of them, show me the impact it has on our universe, how it can possibly affect my life, you may be on to something.
And again, there is a difference between something that has had an impact but no longer can, and something that has never nor can ever have an impact.

Again, are you claiming that stars beyond the cosmological horizon do not exist?

No.

 

[Vociferous]

No goalposts have been moved.
Equations are not a process.
A deterministic system is one where there is no probability involved in the outputs.
The universe has been premised as just such a deterministic system.

Nope, that doesn't fly, by your own cited definition:

"In mathematics, computer science and physics, a deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system. A deterministic model will thus always produce the same output from a given starting condition or initial state."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterministic_system​

The Schrodinger equation is one " in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system" (as it's a deterministic evolution of future states), and I've already stipulated that indeterministic results have no impact...like stars beyond the cosmological horizon. And that equation describes the process of how the state function evolves. Since the question is if free will is possible, like said stars, its impact has no bearing on its existence/possibility. Impact, meaningfulness, etc. are all questions beyond what you have stipulated. This is all abiding by YOUR silly stipulations, if you can muster enough intellectual honesty to be consistent with them and not simply beg the question.

You don't even seem to able to remain consistent on your stance on probabilities, since you want to allow them for the relationship between war/smoking and death but arbitrarily deny them for anything unfavorable to your foregone conclusion (begging the question).

But here's more reason that your own stipulations allow for the Schrodinger equation:

Schrödinger Evolution of Self-Gravitating Disks↑
This phenomenon, expressed in what became known as the Schrödinger equation when it was published in 1926, describes a particle's state in terms of a wave function.

But according to Batygin's new research – coming almost a century later – the equation isn't just for describing particles. Much, much bigger things are also seemingly governed by these quantum calculations.

While investigating an area of quantum physics called perturbation theory to see how it could mathematically represent the forces in astrophysical disk evolution, explaining how these vast objects warp over aeons, Batygin discovered something remarkable.
...
"Eventually, you can approximate the number of wires in the disk to be infinite, which allows you to mathematically blur them together into a continuum. When I did this, astonishingly, the Schrödinger equation emerged in my calculations."
https://www.sciencealert.com/massiv...hroedinger-s-equation-quantum-mechanics-disks​

You have come in only relatively recently across the numerous threads on this matter, and are now trying to overturn the agreed assumption of the thread.

Nope, just playing by your rules. The Schrodinger equation describes a completely deterministic evolution. So it's only your question begging that arbitrarily denies things that YOUR OWN stipulation clearly allow.

The denial of relevance is because we are discussing the case of the universe as a deterministic system, in which probability has no place, and in which the Schrodinger equation, while deterministic in and of itself, can only lead to indeterministic outputs - i.e. probabilistic.
That denial is not arbitrary, but linked specifically to the agreed assumption of this thread.

See the above cited modeling of astrophysical objects using the Schrodinger equation. And if "probability has no place", then you must agree that war and smoking never cause death. That's the silliness your stipulations lead to, and you must accept them all or none at all. Otherwise you are arbitrarily begging the question.

But if you take the right limit, you can use the Schrodinger equation to construct classical orbits.

It is the link between the equation and reality where the indeterminism arises, because Schrodinger's equation can only result in a probability function of outputs.
And if two different outputs can result from the same input to the system, it is by definition not a deterministic system.
That should really be the end of the matter.

As shown above, the Schrodinger equation can be applied to classical physics. THAT should really be the end of the matter.

Do you believe that genuine free will (that I think you deem solely supernatural) has no impact on our deterministic classic universe?

I certainly conclude that genuine freewill does not exist in a deterministic system, nor in any universe defined as such a system.

Try answering the question asked. Existence/possibility does not determine whether a thing has an impact, such as stars beyond the cosmological horizon. The question here, according to you, is whether free will is possible, NOT whether it has an impact. Stick to your own stipulations already. You're coming off as extremely intellectually dishonesty when you won't even let people make an honest attempt to play by your own rules. A deterministic universe allows ANY deterministic system, not just the ones that make your conclusion foregone.

You, however, are suggesting freewill might exist in a deterministic system but have no observable impact on the system.
As something that has no impact on the system, to the system it is meaningless, pointless, and logically consistent with something that does not exist.
Is this what you think freewill is?

Quit asking questions you've demanded we cannot talk about in this thread, including what free will is, which necessitates how it operates. Again, the question is "is free will possible", not is it meaningful or can it have an impact. Quit making arguments you've already demanded are irrelevant to this thread.

I'm not suggesting free will has no impact on your stipulated universe, only that "impact" is clearly beyond the scope of this thread.

If you want to say how it operates (which I'm avidly awaiting your input) because in doing so it answers the question asked in this thread, then go for it.

Nope, you're going to have to demonstrate that you can be intellectually honest and consistent with YOUR OWN STIPULATIONS, before I'll even entertain discussing things outside the scope of this thread. You've spent pages and pages driving that point home.

If you were smart, you'd be intellectually honest, consistent, and agree that:

• your completely deterministic universe allows ANY deterministic system or process, so long as no indeterministic outputs can be therein observed
• probable causes either exist or they don't, period, even if that means that war/smoking can never cause death
• "impact" has no bearing on existence

Then we could get somewhere productive, abiding by your claimed stipulations without arbitrary caveats.

I'm allowing the appearance of them due to lack of information / knowledge of the necessary detail to recognise them as deterministic and non-probabilistic.

I've already explained to you that war and smoking can only ever appear to cause death in such a universe. Neither can actually cause death therein. So the only appearance is the seeming determinism, where the actuality is probable. Otherwise, smoking would ALWAYS cause death and war would ALWAYS cause death. IWO, one puff...dead. One war, everyone on both sides...dead. That's how deterministic systems work. If A caused B, A always causes B, no exceptions.

The probabilistic cause you refer to is the appearance, and must be the appearance, given the system is actually deterministic.
In such a system, if something is probabilistic it is simply due to lack of knowledge of the details.

Nope, you clearly don't understand that basics of what you've been demanding to stipulate. Again, in a deterministic system, if A causes B, A ALWAYS causes B.

Interpreting causation as a deterministic relation means that if A causes B, then A must always be followed by B. In this sense, war does not cause deaths, nor does smoking cause cancer. As a result, many turn to a notion of probabilistic causation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probabilistic_causation#Deterministic_versus_probabilistic_theory​

And again, there is a difference between something that has had an impact but no longer can, and something that has never nor can ever have an impact.

Again, "impact" is clearly beyond the scope of this thread. So quit arguing irrelevancies.

Look, just be intellectually honest and consistent, for once, and we can move on to discussing initial conditions.

 

[Quantum Quack]

"It takes an infinite number of causes (A) to generate a single effect (B) which is only one of an infinite number of effects (B) caused by those infinite number of causes (A)...." (hee hee..)

 

[Baldeee]

Nope, that doesn't fly, by your own cited definition:...
The Schrodinger equation is one " in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system" (as it's a deterministic evolution of future states), and I've already stipulated that indeterministic results have no impact...like stars beyond the cosmological horizon.

It's a deterministic evolution of a wave function - an inherently probabilistic and thus indeterministic output.
From the same starting conditions you can end with different realised outputs - thus indeterministic.
Period.
No need to consider it further.

And that equation describes the process of how the state function evolves. Since the question is if free will is possible, like said stars, its impact has no bearing on its existence/possibility.

While we can see stars that have not slipped beyond the observable universe, i.e. we know their existence beyond our observation is a theoretical possibility, you have yet to show how freewill is even theoretically possible in the deterministic universe.
You have yet to even offer a notion of freewill, for that matter.
If you want to show how it is possible in a deterministic universe you need to do two things: 1. stipulate what you think freewill is (it is a key dispute in such threads) and 2. show how it might be possible to exist, or why it isn't possible.

Impact, meaningfulness, etc. are all questions beyond what you have stipulated.

As stated previously, I accept that there was a hidden implied assumption, that everyone other than you has accepted, that any notion of freewill under consideration would at least, if it exists, be meaningful, and have an impact, even theoretically.

You don't even seem to able to remain consistent on your stance on probabilities, since you want to allow them for the relationship between war/smoking and death but arbitrarily deny them for anything unfavorable to your foregone conclusion (begging the question).

The issue of probability is with regard the nature of the output for a given input.
War/smoking is not a specific input to a system, but a label for a range of inputs to that system.
So, to be clear: allowable probability - out of 100 different inputs, 40 cause death, 60 don't, thus the probability from an unknown input is 40% death.
Not allowable - taking 1 specific known input, there is a 40% chance of death, 60% chance of living.
The latter is contrary to a deterministic system.

But here's more reason that your own stipulations allow for the Schrodinger equation:...

If one can use the equation without probabilistic outcomes, and use it such that the same input will always output the same specific non-probabilistic output - no issue.

Nope, just playing by your rules. The Schrodinger equation describes a completely deterministic evolution. So it's only your question begging that arbitrarily denies things that YOUR OWN stipulation clearly allow.

Not at all.
If the evolution is of an inherently indeterministic output (e.g. wave function), it is irrelevant whether the equation is deterministic or not, as the relationship between input and output of specific states of the system is not deterministic.

And if "probability has no place", then you must agree that war and smoking never cause death. That's the silliness your stipulations lead to, and you must accept them all or none at all. Otherwise you are arbitrarily begging the question.

Probability has a place if it is of the former example I gave above.
Not the latter.
Do you at least recognise that there is a difference?

But if you take the right limit, you can use the Schrodinger equation to construct classical orbits.

As shown above, the Schrodinger equation can be applied to classical physics. THAT should really be the end of the matter.

It is not the equation that is the issue, as I tried to explain previously, and again above, but the subject of the equation: if it is inherently probabilistic such as a QM wavefunction then it simply doesn't matter that the equation is deterministic.

Try answering the question asked. Existence/possibility does not determine whether a thing has an impact, such as stars beyond the cosmological horizon. The question here, according to you, is whether free will is possible, NOT whether it has an impact. Stick to your own stipulations already.

I haven't said that existence or possibility do determine such things.
I have accepted that there was a hidden implied assumption that any freewill being considered would, if it existed, be meaningful and have an impact.
Apologies if this has confused you.

A deterministic universe allows ANY deterministic system, not just the ones that make your conclusion foregone.

My conclusion is simply based on what it means for a system to be deterministic.
And that does not include any whose outputs are probabilistic.

Quit asking questions you've demanded we cannot talk about in this thread, including what free will is, which necessitates how it operates.

Where have I said that you can't talk about what free will is???
How can one answer the question without doing so?

Again, the question is "is free will possible", not is it meaningful or can it have an impact. Quit making arguments you've already demanded are irrelevant to this thread.

I haven't said that they are irrelevant to this thread.
If anything I am saying that your analogy suggest you are making freewill irrelevant to everything else.

I'm not suggesting free will has no impact on your stipulated universe, only that "impact" is clearly beyond the scope of this thread.

That freewill is something that has an impact is a hidden and implied assumption, one that everyone else has accepted.

Are you ever going to even answer the question the thread asks?

If you were smart, you'd be intellectually honest, consistent, and agree that:
your completely deterministic universe allows ANY deterministic system or process, so long as no indeterministic outputs can be therein observed

I admit to ignorance of the schrodinger equation being used for deterministic outputs, and even reading the article I'm not convinced even then it is but rather still offering a probabilistic model to a classical issue.
But it is not just a matter of whether they can be observed, but whether they exist, or are possible.
As I'm sure you would agree if you were being intellectually honest and consistent.
A deterministic system is one where indeterministic outputs are not possible, not just where they are not observed.

probable causes either exist or they don't, period, even if that means that war/smoking can never cause death

Anything and everything either exists or it doesn't, period.

"impact" has no bearing on existence

I have never said otherwise.

I've already explained to you that war and smoking can only ever appear to cause death in such a universe. Neither can actually cause death therein. So the only appearance is the seeming determinism, where the actuality is probable. Otherwise, smoking would ALWAYS cause death and war would ALWAYS cause death. IWO, one puff...dead. One war, everyone on both sides...dead. That's how deterministic systems work. If A caused B, A always causes B, no exceptions.
...
Nope, you clearly don't understand that basics of what you've been demanding to stipulate. Again, in a deterministic system, if A causes B, A ALWAYS causes B.

Let me clarify:
War/smoking is not a single input but a vast set of possible inputs, any one of which we might refer to as "smoking" or "war".
Not all such inputs will result in death but some will, and so it is quite correct to say that smoking/war can cause death.

This is quite consistent with a deterministic system.
It is the same way that if you have a deterministic system that always adds one to the input integer, then there is a 50/50 chance of an odd number being output when all possible inputs are considered, but there is no such probability when a single input is considered.
E.g. if I input 2 then the output will be 3, and there is no probability of anything else.

But just because you can say that "smoking has a probability of death" also does not mean that it is not a deterministic system - because "smoking" in this context is not a single input by which the determinism can be judged.
In the deterministic system as complex as one that allows for labels such as "smoking" and "death", no two inputs will ever be the same.
We can only ever group inputs into sets that have similar properties judged (usually) at the macro level.
But when we do get inputs that are the same, we will always get the same result.

In a deterministic universe, the determinism isn't the appearance, it is the actuality.
The probability that macro-cause X will result in macro-result Y is the appearance, and it appears that the same cause ("smoking") can end in different results - and thus appear to be indeterministic if treated as a system in and of itself.
But the macro-cause X of "smoking" will never actually be identical from example to example, and the deterministic system requires identical inputs to be able to be observed as deterministic.
As such, the observation, the appearance, isn't the deterministic nature of such a complex system.

Again, "impact" is clearly beyond the scope of this thread. So quit arguing irrelevancies.

Other than the hidden assumption mentioned before, consider it me being curious as to what you think free will actually is, so that I might be able to eventually agree or disagree with you when you deign to actually give an answer to the thread question.

 

[iceaura]

A deterministic system is one where there is no probability involved in the outputs.

No.
A world obedient to the probabilities of natural law is as determined as anything can be. Nothing is harder to beat than the House.
- - - -

But it doesn’t have any greater significance than the rest.

It seems to be giving you guys fits. You are avoiding it as if it were a ticking bomb. If it is so little significant, why are you twisting yourselves up like hooked worms?

But that willed action is a determined universal expression, not a human selection of actual alternatives.

It will be both, of course.
Human selection from capabilities is the means by which the universe determines the behavior of a car at a traffic light. That is observed, physical, objective reality.
Meanwhile, the driver is only approaching the light - they have taken no actions.

You don’t have to detail it, their associated action is implied by their inclusion.

They are not included. "Associated action" is explicitly excluded. No action is assumed or presented. The driver is observed, and certain aspects of the driver's physical being described, in the situation as given.

Of course all futures in a determined system have definite pasts. Now who’s suggesting backwards causality?

You are.
Every time you repeat your idiotic insistence on the future color of a traffic light affecting presently observed capabilities.

The future color of a traffic light and the action of a driver in that same environment will be as determined by the universe, no backwards causality at play

And so that event will have no effect on observations made in the present, which is at an earlier time and a different place entirely. That would involve backwards causality.

But you can’t assume the nature of the human element without also considering the nature of all other associated environmental elements.

The nature of the human element is observed, by assumption. I simplified it a great deal, in an attempt to prevent the kind of muddle you insist on dragging in.
Nothing else is observed, and nothing changes at the time of observation. No actions are involved.
Repeat: no actions are involved. The driver does nothing. The car's behavior does not change. There is no light present, and no reactions to it have occurred.
Repeat: Future events are not part of the present environment. They haven't happened yet. In a causally deterministic universe, as assumed here, they have no effects on current physical reality. They cause nothing in the present. That's why we call them "future" events.
- - - -
And yet we see this kind of response:

The view iceaura has here is like if you roll a die but cover the outcome with your hand, then the die still has the capability of being any number from 1 to 6.

?
My view is that a person approaching the event of rolling a die has the capability of rolling any number from 1 to 6. No die has been rolled, in my example.
That is the view presented in my illustration, which you still refuse to deal with: "A driver approaches a traffic light. They will stop, or go, depending on the color of the light." That's it.

The die has not been rolled, in other words - that's central, key, right in front of you. There is no outcome. Nothing has happened. You guys are having a great deal of trouble with that simple fact.

If you would simply consider the example I posted, and quit trying to screw around with it, you might make fewer such genuinely dumb mistakes. Why won't you do that?

 

[Baldeee]

My view is that a person approaching the event of rolling a die has the capability of rolling any number from 1 to 6. No die has been rolled, in my example.

That’s the point, though: to all intents and purposes the die has been rolled, we are just not cognisant of it until we observe it happening.
In a deterministic system, as soon as the initial conditions are in place and the system begins, every moment of that system is established, is set in stone, effectively exists and has happened.
The entire life of that system is set in stone, each slice a moment in time.
As such the roll has already taken place, the outcome already established, just not known by those unable to know it.
There is thus no capability to roll anything other than what is rolled.
Any capability is simply an imagined one, not actual.
For a capability to be actual one must be able to take one of those future slices and change it from what has already been predetermined.
If you can’t do this, you have no capability to do anything other than what is already set in stone.
The only reason one thinks they have such a capability is because of the subjective manner of our existence; we act oblivious to the predetermined nature of what we do.

If I have a deterministic system that adds one to the previous state each time, and I start with an initial condition of 1, that system: the laws and the initial condition, is enough to define every moment, every state in the life of that system.
Those laws and the initial conditions, once begun, mean that every result has effectively already happened, established, set in stone, unalterable.
So yes, the die has already been rolled.
We’re just not aware of it when we aren’t aware of the initial conditions or the laws sufficiently to be able to establish it in advance of it actually being subjectively observed.

That is the view presented in my illustration, which you still refuse to deal with: "A driver approaches a traffic light. They will stop, or go, depending on the color of the light." That's it.

And you’re refusing to deal with the reality of that situation within a deterministic system.

The die has not been rolled, in other words - that's central, key, right in front of you. There is no outcome. Nothing has happened. You guys are having a great deal of trouble with that simple fact.

On the contrary, it is you who fails to comprehend that the die has been rolled as far as possible outcomes are concerned.
We haven’t witnessed it, sure, but in a deterministic system everything effectively already happens as soon as the initial conditions are in place and the system begins.
From that point on, the entire life of the system is established.
Every moment, every state, every aspect.
The die has been rolled, the output is what it is, it can not be changed, even if there are aspects of the system that are not yet cognisant from their perspective that a roll is even about to take place.

If you would simply consider the example I posted, and quit trying to screw around with it, you might make fewer such genuinely dumb mistakes. Why won't you do that?

We are considering it, and have considered it time and time again, but you refuse to address the reality of what is entailed in that example.

 

[Capracus]

The fact remains that the Copenhagen interpretation accepts the indeterministic results of QM at face value, without adding further unjustified and less parsimonious assumptions.

Fine, adherents of the Copenhagen interpretation can ignore the fact that the underlying nature of the quantum realm is beyond their capacity to know, and be content with their ignorance.

Another straw man. No one claimed that observations "exclusively support" any interpretation. Only that the Copenhagen interpretation makes no assumptions beyond those empirical observations. You can take up the defensibility with those founders of QM.

But it does make assumption beyond what is observed by implying that the quantum realm is inherently indeterministic without the ability to know that to be the case.

The Copenhagen interpretation is not equivalent to instrumentalism, which is listed as an alternative: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation#Alternatives
Again, please learn some physics.

Of course it’s an example of instrumentalism. For the sake of practicality it assumes that quantum systems are indeterministic without the ability or the apparent intention to verify it.

No, the actual, empirical, real-world results of a QM experiment are indeterministic. No one, even those who espouse deterministic interpretations, deny that brute fact. Otherwise, they could predict the result with 100% certainty, based on the initial experimental setup. By all means, waste your time trying to find that, and sifting through loads of crackpottery.

Because quantum states can’t currently be precisely known, there will be indeterminacy in the outcome of any observation. If you can’t precisely determine the nature of a quantum state, how do you establish a knowable initial state? If you start with uncertainty, you’re destined to end with it. This says more about the observer than it does about the system being observed.

It seems to be giving you guys fits. You are avoiding it as if it were a ticking bomb. If it is so little significant, why are you twisting yourselves up like hooked worms?

I haven’t avoided it at all, I just see it as one of countless determined elements of an event.

It will be both, of course.
Human selection from capabilities is the means by which the universe determines the behavior of a car at a traffic light. That is observed, physical, objective reality.
Meanwhile, the driver is only approaching the light - they have taken no actions.

From a deterministic point of view, the human act of selection is no more responsible for the resultant action of the car than the ECU of the car is. The fuel ratio selected by the ECU is the means by which the universe determines the behavior of the car. We can play this game of causality with every determined element that is conceivably connected to the event.

They are not included. "Associated action" is explicitly excluded. No action is assumed or presented. The driver is observed, and certain aspects of the driver's physical being described, in the situation as given.

But the whole point of describing the state of the driver is to explain the future action of the driver and the associated elements of the example. From a deterministic point of view the driver is observed like all other universal elements, just acting out its determined script.

You are.
Every time you repeat your idiotic insistence on the future color of a traffic light affecting presently observed capabilities.

In a determined system all outcome are determined from the start. The driver can only act as determined, and the traffic light can only express color as determined. The presently observed capabilities and the future color of the traffic light are fixed qualities in a determined system.

And so that event will have no effect on observations made in the present, which is at an earlier time and a different place entirely. That would involve backwards causality.

Present observations and the future color of the traffic light are both predetermined states in the determined universe, so each of these momentary states implies the existence of the other.

The nature of the human element is observed, by assumption. I simplified it a great deal, in an attempt to prevent the kind of muddle you insist on dragging in.
Nothing else is observed, and nothing changes at the time of observation. No actions are involved.
Repeat: no actions are involved. The driver does nothing. The car's behavior does not change. There is no light present, and no reactions to it have occurred.
Repeat: Future events are not part of the present environment. They haven't happened yet. In a causally deterministic universe, as assumed here, they have no effects on current physical reality. They cause nothing in the present. That's why we call them "future" events.

A causally determined universe implies that the nature of the present is determined by the universal sum of the past, which also implies that the same holds true for the future. The determined past has already created a determined present and future, so the action of the driver and traffic light don’t have probable presents and futures, but strictly determined ones.

My view is that a person approaching the event of rolling a die has the capability of rolling any number from 1 to 6. No die has been rolled, in my example.
That is the view presented in my illustration, which you still refuse to deal with: "A driver approaches a traffic light. They will stop, or go, depending on the color of the light." That's it.

The die has not been rolled, in other words - that's central, key, right in front of you. There is no outcome. Nothing has happened. You guys are having a great deal of trouble with that simple fact.

If you would simply consider the example I posted, and quit trying to screw around with it, you might make fewer such genuinely dumb mistakes. Why won't you do that?

It doesn’t matter how you frame the example, because all of the elements of the example are predetermined. All of the elements involved, from the deepest micro level to the greatest macro level have deterministically conspired to define the example. The human, the car and the traffic light are just manifestations of that greater deterministic whole.

 

[iceaura]

From a deterministic point of view, the human act of selection is no more responsible for the resultant action of the car than the ECU of the car is.

And no less. So let's take a look at the capabilities of the human, since that is the focus of the example.

We can play this game of causality with every determined element that is conceivably connected to the event.

The example is of the determined element we name the "driver".
You are refusing to "play", and making a very big deal out of changing the game - apparently, to something you think you can handle.

It doesn’t matter how you frame the example, because all of the elements of the example are predetermined

The future is not an element of the example. No events of the future are involved. The example is of a specific time and place - different times and places are different examples.

A causally determined universe implies that the nature of the present is determined by the universal sum of the past, which also implies that the same holds true for the future

Yep.
The choice of capabilities that will be made by the driver, in the future, at another time and place, is part of what will determine the future after that event. Agreed.
Meanwhile we are talking about a specific time and place, and the physical situation that exists then and there.

I haven’t avoided it at all, I just see it as one of countless determined elements of an event.

You have never - not once - dealt with it in any way. You have moved the time and the place in every post you make on the topic.
And this has been pointed out to you several times now - your refusal, you insistence on changing the time and place, is avoidance.

Why do you do that? Why do all you guys - every single one - do that?

 

[Capracus]

And no less. So let's take a look at the capabilities of the human, since that is the focus of the example.

The human gets to act out its deterministic script, just like the car and the traffic light. Every act the human makes is determined by the universe, it must select what the universe has ordained, there are no other options.

The example is of the determined element we name the "driver".
You are refusing to "play", and making a very big deal out of changing the game - apparently, to something you think you can handle.

I’ve described the driver’s determined behavior repeatedly, you just refuse to acknowledge the implications of the description.

The future is not an element of the example. No events of the future are involved. The example is of a specific time and place - different times and places are different examples.

In a determined system the past, present and future are already scripted, if you talk about one, your talking about the inclusion or eventuality of the others.

Yep.
The choice of capabilities that will be made by the driver, in the future, at another time and place, is part of what will determine the future after that event. Agreed.
Meanwhile we are talking about a specific time and place, and the physical situation that exists then and there.

In a determined system there are no plural capabilities for a given situation, there is only the specific action ordained by the universe for a given time, place and situation. In the case of the driver and traffic light, it was predestined to be a specific outcome long before the driver and traffic light ever existed, so why does the selection of the driver matter in regards to the outcome?

You have never - not once - dealt with it in any way. You have moved the time and the place in every post you make on the topic.
And this has been pointed out to you several times now - your refusal, you insistence on changing the time and place, is avoidance.

Why do you do that? Why do all you guys - every single one - do that?

Every time you posit the example, all elements of it get adequately addressed, you just don’t like the way it’s done.

 

[iceaura]

Every time you posit the example, all elements of it get adequately addressed,

You have never posted on the matter without changing the time and place of the example. See below, for your avoidances and changes this time:

In a determined system there are no plural capabilities for a given situation,

Nonsense. Various capabilities - including those mutually exclusive in employment - are determined like all other physical entities. They exist just as plural fingers and toes exist. We observe them.

The human gets to act out its deterministic script, just like the car and the traffic light.

In my example the human does not act. Neither does the traffic light. No scripted events take place.

I’ve described the driver’s determined behavior repeatedly

The driver does not exhibit any behaviors, in my example. There is no such thing for you to describe, or even pretend to describe as you do, in my example.
You are once again describing some other situation , the events and outcomes of a different time and place.

In the case of the driver and traffic light, it was predestined to be a specific outcome long before the driver and traffic light ever existed, so why does the selection of the driver matter in regards to the outcome?

The selection of the driver of course determines part of the outcome, in your example from the future. That's how the determined outcome comes about, in your example. That's how the deterministic universe determines such outcomes.

We have been around that several times now. You appear to have forgotten everything I posted on it, but I don't want to repeat it all anyway -

- I was hoping to discuss my example, instead. Why won't you do that?

 

[Capracus]

You have never posted on the matter without changing the time and place of the example. See below, for your avoidances and changes this time:

If I address the the subject your post, why does it matter if I expand on what you present?

Nonsense. Various capabilities - including those mutually exclusive in employment - are determined like all other physical entities. They exist just as plural fingers and toes exist. We observe them.

For a given situation there are not various capabilities that can be employed in regards to the action involved. For example, the driver in your traffic light scenario does not have the capability to stop or go, the driver can only do that which has been predetermined by the universe. If the universe determines that the driver must stop, then the driver does not have the capability to go.

In my example the human does not act. Neither does the traffic light. No scripted events take place.

Your question was what are the human capabilities, and my answer was that the human gets to act out its deterministic script, just like the car and the traffic light. If you posit capabilities, then you are positing the potential action of the elements of your example.

The driver does not exhibit any behaviors, in my example. There is no such thing for you to describe, or even pretend to describe as you do, in my example.
You are once again describing some other situation , the events and outcomes of a different time and place.

If we are discussing the driver’s capabilities, then the driver’s potential behavior is also included.

The selection of the driver of course determines part of the outcome, in your example from the future. That's how the determined outcome comes about, in your example. That's how the deterministic universe determines such outcomes.

That selection is a process composed of countless universal elements that included the driver. The selection didn’t start with the driver, it concluded with the action of the driver, action that the driver could not have made otherwise. Before the driver existed, the universe had already determined the conditions and outcomes for all selections the driver will ever make.

We have been around that several times now. You appear to have forgotten everything I posted on it, but I don't want to repeat it all anyway -

- I was hoping to discuss my example, instead. Why won't you do that?

Wake up! This thread is full of pages of us doing the very thing you claim we’re not.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Your question was what are the human capabilities, and my answer was that the human gets to act out its deterministic script, just like the car and the traffic light.

So a human has to learn the ability to be able to act out a deterministic script? lol
I guess a paranormal acolyte may need training sure...
In the field of woo this may refer to "Auto acting" or "Auto speaking" where by a person drops any form of deliberate control and becomes a conduit for deterministic scripts.
Ougi boards, Sceances, Tarot reading, Astrology, and just about anything woo...

 

[Capracus]

o a human has to learn the ability to be able to act out a deterministic script?

The elements in a deterministic universe aren’t required to learn anything to act out the deterministic script. Human behavior, like the behavior of any other universal entity is the product of the determined interaction of their constituent elements with those of the environments they inhabit.

 

[Quantum Quack]

The elements in a deterministic universe aren’t required to learn anything to act out the deterministic script. Human behavior, like the behavior of any other universal entity is the product of the determined interaction of their constituent elements with those of the environments they inhabit.

sure....lol
Gotta have something to learn about....

 

[Capracus]

Gotta have something to learn about....

Obviously.

 

[Quantum Quack]

The elements in a deterministic universe aren’t required to learn anything to act out the deterministic script. Human behavior, like the behavior of any other universal entity is the product of the determined interaction of their constituent elements with those of the environments they inhabit.

Do you consider Gravity as being a pre-determining factor?
How about electricity, magnetism etc?

 

[Capracus]

Do you consider Gravity as being pre-determining factor?

No silly, gravity has the capacity to do its own thing.

 

[Quantum Quack]

No silly, gravity has the capacity to do its own thing.

When do you learn to defy it's influence enough to stand up and walk... what age approximately?
When did you start predetermining your actions in a gravitational field?