Compatibilism is impossible

[Flannel Jesus]

Just interested in where you stand, what your opinion is, Determinism or Compatibilism?

I think that libertarian free will is nonsensical at a conceptual level. Regardless of if determinism is the case.

I'm very very loose on how much I think determinism is the case, or if instead there's some genuine randomness - with quantum mechanics in the picture, it really could lean either way. I lean towards determinism but I'm not anywhere near certain that there's no randomness.

I only started considering compatibilist ideas over the last couple years, and I would say that it's actually a bit challenging in some ways to grapple with, but overall it's making more sense to me than the alternatives.

So I lean towards determinism and compatibilism, but with caution on both counts.

[attofishpi]

Just interested in where you stand, what your opinion is, Determinism or Compatibilism?

I think that libertarian free will is nonsensical at a conceptual level. Regardless of if determinism is the case.

I'm very very loose on how much I think determinism is the case, or if instead there's some genuine randomness - with quantum mechanics in the picture, it really could lean either way. I lean towards determinism but I'm not anywhere near certain that there's no randomness.

I only started considering compatibilist ideas over the last couple years, and I would say that it's actually a bit challenging in some ways to grapple with, but overall it's making more sense to me than the alternatives.

So I lean towards determinism and compatibilism, but with caution on both counts.

Ok. I don't think randomness is required to comprehend free-will within a deterministic universe though. However, my Boony's Room thought experiment has me questioning that.

[Flannel Jesus]

Ok. I don't think randomness is required to comprehend free-will within a deterministic universe though. However, my Boony's Room thought experiment has me questioning that.

Well if there were randomness, it wouldn't be pure determinism, right?

[bahman]

Compatibilism is merely a recognition that although wholly deterministic, each of our wills can act as agents to intervene in various chains of causality.
The POV is "compatible" with the notion of "free will" since the meaing of "free" means not complelled by exogenous forces (such as a gun to the head) but where the determination of the individual is endogenously generated.
Such actions of mine are free in that they are not determined by others, but chosen through considerations of endogenous causes such as experience, learning and volition which are personal.

What do you mean by various chains of causality? Any deterministic system evolves according to one chain of causality.

That isn't always the case. Consider the man who was simultaneously hit by two vehicles while crossing the road in a preoccupied state of WhatsApp fascination.

What is your system? Two cars and the man?

[Immanuel Can]

Ok. I don't think randomness is required to comprehend free-will within a deterministic universe though. However, my Boony's Room thought experiment has me questioning that.

Well if there were randomness, it wouldn't be pure determinism, right?

Randomness would still be Deterministic. All outcomes would be "predetermined" by random processes, not by any volition of persons.

But that would be considerably worse than old-style Determinism, because at least with conventional Determinism one might be able to predict what will happen as a result of cause and effect. With randomness, there's no prediction possible. Things would still be totally outside of human volition and control, but then one could not even know things or calculate effects; they'd all be random. So science would become impossible, rational management would be impossible, education would be impossible, cause-effect wouldn't work in ways we can understand...

[Iwannaplato]

I think the argument here is, if this universe all started at the big bang, those two vehicles are ultimately part of the unbroken single chain of causality that started at t=0 and progressed since then according to whatever the laws of physics are.

You could think of it as an extremely complicated wave, moving forward, forming different patterns as it goes.

Clearly you are both discounting any free-will affect on the deterministic causal chains.

I am describing a determistic model, including compatiblism. I don't what is the case. But if one is discussing determinism and what it would mean, that is how I would explain that it may be useful to think of isolated and many causal chains, but if I want to describe the whole process, there are no separate causal chains but rather what I said previously.

[Harbal]

What do you mean by various chains of causality? Any deterministic system evolves according to one chain of causality.

That isn't always the case. Consider the man who was simultaneously hit by two vehicles while crossing the road in a preoccupied state of WhatsApp fascination.

What is your system? Two cars and the man?

I don't have a system. When I don't, or can't, know something, I accept it.

[attofishpi]

Ok. I don't think randomness is required to comprehend free-will within a deterministic universe though. However, my Boony's Room thought experiment has me questioning that.

Well if there were randomness, it wouldn't be pure determinism, right?

What we perceive as randomness always has a boundary (a scope), therefore a probability factor similarly so do quantum fields.

[attofishpi]

You could think of it as an extremely complicated wave, moving forward, forming different patterns as it goes.

Clearly you are both discounting any free-will affect on the deterministic causal chains.

I am describing a determistic model, including compatiblism. I don't what is the case. But if one is discussing determinism and what it would mean, that is how I would explain that it may be useful to think of isolated and many causal chains, but if I want to describe the whole process, there are no separate causal chains but rather what I said previously.

I'm not certain of what you said previously but regarding causal chains you must agree that every causal chain is independent of other with the caveat that each causal chain CAN be affected by others, and can diverge into other causal chains.

When I fart, any causal chain from that has zero affect on any causal chain upon the gas of Neptune. (honestly, I did the metaphysics of it)

[Flannel Jesus]

Ok. I don't think randomness is required to comprehend free-will within a deterministic universe though. However, my Boony's Room thought experiment has me questioning that.

Well if there were randomness, it wouldn't be pure determinism, right?

What we perceive as randomness always has a boundary (a scope), therefore a probability factor similarly so do quantum fields.

Yeah, sure - I still would consider that randomness. I don't have any reason to think "randomness with a scope" or "randomness with a probability distribution" isn't genuine randomness.

[attofishpi]

Well if there were randomness, it wouldn't be pure determinism, right?

What we perceive as randomness always has a boundary (a scope), therefore a probability factor similarly so do quantum fields.

Yeah, sure - I still would consider that randomness. I don't have any reason to think "randomness with a scope" or "randomness with a probability distribution" isn't genuine randomness.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'genuine randomness'.

Perhaps it would be the chaos I describe in the context of no logic - there it would have no boundary scope. All other, current 'randomness' has a probability boundary scope that whatever we are attempting to determine is 'random' is capable of being reduced to - it has bounds - a 6 sided dice has less bounds than an 30 sided dice, ergo the probability factors are different.

[Iwannaplato]

Clearly you are both discounting any free-will affect on the deterministic causal chains.

I am describing a determistic model, including compatiblism. I don't what is the case. But if one is discussing determinism and what it would mean, that is how I would explain that it may be useful to think of isolated and many causal chains, but if I want to describe the whole process, there are no separate causal chains but rather what I said previously.

I'm not certain of what you said previously but regarding causal chains you must agree that every causal chain is independent of other with the caveat that each causal chain CAN be affected by others, and can diverge into other causal chains.

When I fart, any causal chain from that has zero affect on any causal chain upon the gas of Neptune. (honestly, I did the metaphysics of it)

Sounds more like a thought experiment and not a metaphysical one, but hey, when looking at it that way I agree. But looking at it another way, the whole universe is moving from state X to the next moment state Y. If I look at a wave in the ocean, yes, those molecules over there that have gotten a little air in them so it looks white at that tip, that tip is going to hit the surface at point B and make the following changes. But really there's this whole thing, the entire universe that does not have separate parts in the sense of disconnected from the whole. It's certainly useful to look at what we call individual causal chains, but I think it''s really more like this state shifting to another as a whole. And if it's a block universe, then it isn't really causal chains or a causal wave. WE have things state A adjacent to, not causing, the next state beside it.

[Flannel Jesus]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'genuine randomness'.

Genuine randomness as opposed to apparent randomness.

Apparent randomness is like, if we are watching a physical simulation of a dice roll in a deterministic computer program, we don't know where it will land - but if it lands on 4, we know if we replay the simulation exactly, with the same exact same starting conditions, it will be the same. So the first time we see the result, it seems random to us - because we don't have the knowledge to know precisely what's going to happen, until it does happen.

Genuine randomness is when things are actually random, not just because we're ignorant of certain things that would allow us to predict what's going to happen, but because things actually spontaneously happen without a determinate cause. In other words, in a world with genuine randomness, even a being (outside the world) who knew everything there was to know about that world still couldn't perfectly predict what will happen next - and if you rewind the world and press play again, a different thing might happen.

Also, there are completely feasible ways for your fart today to affect the weather on Neptune in the far future. I mean, I don't know why that's relevant here, but I do think that as an aside.

[attofishpi]

I am describing a determistic model, including compatiblism. I don't what is the case. But if one is discussing determinism and what it would mean, that is how I would explain that it may be useful to think of isolated and many causal chains, but if I want to describe the whole process, there are no separate causal chains but rather what I said previously.

I'm not certain of what you said previously but regarding causal chains you must agree that every causal chain is independent of other with the caveat that each causal chain CAN be affected by others, and can diverge into other causal chains.

When I fart, any causal chain from that has zero affect on any causal chain upon the gas of Neptune. (honestly, I did the metaphysics of it)

Sounds more like a thought experiment and not a metaphysical one, but hey, when looking at it that way I agree. But looking at it another way, the whole universe is moving from state X to the next moment state Y. If I look at a wave in the ocean, yes, those molecules over there that have gotten a little air in them so it looks white at that tip, that tip is going to hit the surface at point B and make the following changes. But really there's this whole thing, the entire universe that does not have separate parts in the sense of disconnected from the whole. It's certainly useful to look at what we call individual causal chains, but I think it''s really more like this state shifting to another as a whole. And if it's a block universe, then it isn't really causal chains or a causal wave. WE have things state A adjacent to, not causing, the next state beside it.

Block is bollocks.

[attofishpi]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'genuine randomness'.

Genuine randomness as opposed to apparent randomness.

Apparent randomness is like, if we are watching a physical simulation of a dice roll in a deterministic computer program, we don't know where it will land - but if it lands on 4, we know if we replay the simulation exactly, with the same exact same starting conditions, it will be the same. So the first time we see the result, it seems random to us - because we don't have the knowledge to know precisely what's going to happen, until it does happen.

Genuine randomness is when things are actually random, not just because we're ignorant of certain things that would allow us to predict what's going to happen, but because things actually spontaneously happen without a determinate cause. In other words, in a world with genuine randomness, even a being (outside the world) who knew everything there was to know about that world still couldn't perfectly predict what will happen next - and if you rewind the world and press play again, a different thing might happen.

Nobody can 'perfectly predict' anything of 'randomness' even if it is a binary coin toss or a six-sided dice. I am still not sure what you mean by 'genuine randomness'.

{edit: on a re read I think I understand your point.}

Also, there are completely feasible ways for your fart today to affect the weather on Neptune in the far future. I mean, I don't know why that's relevant here, but I do think that as an aside.

Sure, and I considered that, but certainly the Sun will consume the Earth as a red giant prior to that causal chain...then of course you will insist that my fart 'chain' exists within the red giant that will eventually cause something to happen to Neptune.