If you create your path by making choices, then there is no determinism. The fact that the past has already been determined is irrelevant, because you are not standing at the end of time looking back, you are at the present, now. If determinism meant that just the past is already determined, then there would be no conflict between free will and determinism, but determinists think that the future is determined as well. That's why free will and determinism are incompatible.

The future is determined, we just can't see it yet because we are at the wrong part of time. We made the choices that determined it. Just because I am unable to see it yet does not mean it is not deterministic.

There is a paradox at work though as seeing the deterministic path before time has passed you along it may cause you to make another choice, breaking the pattern. The key to the paradox however lies in understanding that the changes you make because you saw the future were always the changes you made. It was determined that you would see your future and make the changes.

Perhaps a multiple universes interpretation would not go astray after all.

it derives from a supernatural authority called Natural Law — Rich

According to you, Rich, the natural is supernatural.

For the record, I disagree.

But do carry on. Your pseudo-intellectual antics are now starting to become amusing, and to lose their vexing effect.

natural is supernatural. — szardosszemagad

Well anyone can call supernatural natural. In this manner God is quite natural since S/He is exactly equivalent to Natural Laws. It's all about the nature of religion which words are used. But ultimately Determinism is exactly the same as Calvinism.

It's the age old debate of determinism. Is the path we walk fated? Do we have choice? Is the past written or is it just as unclear as the future? — MikeL

I think this is relevant, not sure - So, One of the Hindu gods was sitting around, lonely. For company, he made himself forget he was god, and split himself into many parts. That's us. I have this image of god behind the stage in a puppet theater that includes everything. He plays all the parts, speaks all the voices.

Can't remember where I read that.

How would we formulate determinism or fate without causation? — TheMadFool

You can't. It's all part of the same dogma.

If I say determinism is true then I am presupposing causation of some kind. Of course, causation can be non-deterministic but, the point is, fate and determinism can't be explained without it. — TheMadFool

Right. You can say anything you want. And Determinism as well as other religions say exactly the same thing using different words. Zero evidence for either which is what makes it a story. But you can say anything you want.

At the end of time, looking back I can see the path you walked. — MikeL

Nice story.

You created the path as you made your own choices- it was free will, but you did create the path. Thus it is about tenses. It will be determined, it was determined, it is being determined. Same thing, different time position. — MikeL

What a mess. "You created", choices, free will, determined". I don't think you left anything out. I suppose you could add all of the synonyms.

duplicate

The future is determined, we just can't see it yet because we are at the wrong part of time. We made the choices that determined it. Just because I am unable to see it yet does not mean it is not deterministic. — MikeL

So I've already made the choices which I will make tomorrow, concerning the day after tomorrow. It doesn't make sense to say that we've already made the choices which we will make in the future. If you say that these choices are already determined, then they aren't choices at all. What appears as choosing is not. It is an illusion.

So I've already made the choices which I will make tomorrow, concerning the day after tomorrow. It doesn't make sense to say that we've already made the choices which we will make in the future. If you say that these choices are already determined, then they aren't choices at all. What appears as choosing is not. It is an illusion. — Metaphysician Undercover

So when you went to the shops yesterday, that wasn't a choice? I can see that you did it. The path is written and it happened only once, so it was determined. I can draw a path of every move you've made since the day you were born, all determined, all choices. I can skip to the end of time and look at all the choices you made and the path you took. It's just you can't see it yet. Time is a curtain obscuring it.

We walk only one path. The fact you chose to go left instead of right tomorrow was written in history the day after tomorrow, but it was written- or from today's point of view, will be written. I can go to the day after tomorrow and see that you did it - and you had complete free will in doing so.

What a mess. "You created", choices, free will, determined". I don't think you left anything out. I suppose you could add all of the synonyms. — Rich

If the shapes fit into the holes, Rich, then there's nothing wrong with putting them in.

What you have here Mike is a crater and you are filling it with every word and concept in the dictionary. It doesn't provide any understanding just to use words and create sentences with them.

You make it sound like I'm scrambling. I find the whole thing quite straight forward. Maybe the crater is one I have created in your thinking and you are trying to understand it by filling it with my words.

Mike this is my thinking as of now:

1) We have memory which shapes our actions and choices.

2) We make choices as to which direction we wish to go and we used will to effect these choices.

3) Results unfold. Nothing is determined since there are enumerable probabilistic events that are also unfolding all around us. (I have no idea where any of gets the idea that anything is predictable. Is anyone actually observing the world?).

4) We learn and new memories are created as duration unfolds.

There are causes (internal and external), there are constraints, there are choices that the mind makes (forget about free will), and there are probabilistic results. This is all in conformance to daily observations. No need to make up absurd stories such as we are computers or chemicals that talk to each other.

If I stand at a craps table and watch the thrower roll the dice in his hand, blow on them, get his girlfriend to blow on them, whisper a short prayer under his breath and then cast the dice down the table, just as the temperature drops half a degree and a small gust from a surge in the airconditioning hits the table, the thrower may roll a seven. With so many variables at play, it could have been anything at all that he rolled.

When I watch it back on tape, he keeps rolling a seven. He can't do anything else other than roll a seven regardless of how many times I watch it. It is determined, it was determined, it will be revealed as determined. Only if we could back up, keep the variables exactly the same, and have him roll an eight this time would determinism be proven false, but then again so would all the laws of physics.

Mike, you can watch it on the tape as long as it works correctly. After that you are up the creek. It is all probabilistic.

Take a deep breath and really try to understand. I mean REALLY try to understand. Everyone is so quick to the draw. No patience to deeply observe and understand nature.

The initial conditions that created the path were probabilistic, but the single path was created through time nonetheless. By changing our position in time we can see it.

Multiple Worlds theory could explain a paradox of making a different choice knowing the outcome ahead of time. But even then, only one path ends up being walked.

Perhaps an important conceptual point to consider is that probability does have an outcome. As the cast dice slow their angular momentum, the probability of certain combinations occurring ratchet down markedly until ultimately there is only 1 option. Probability 100% determined.

The counter that could be made to take the sting of absolutism out of determinism is to suggest that while our path is determined, it cannot be predicted using environmental variables from the past.

For this argument to work, you would need to assume an origin of thought that is spontaneous and independent on any other variables, internal or external.

Of course, sitting at the end of time, I can see when those little blips happened and how it made you choose the path you took.

You seem to be considering determinability and predictability to be coterminous? Or, another question: are determination and predetermination the same? In any case, I would say that determinism, as a metaphysical or ontological postulate, is entirely prejudicial, however unavoidable and indispensable it might be as an underpinning to any naturalistic understanding of the world.

The initial conditions that created the path were probabilistic — MikeL

This is not determinism

By changing our position in time we can see it. — MikeL

How do you perform this magic? Too much Dr. Who.

Multiple Worlds theory could explain a paradox of making a different choice knowing the outcome ahead of time. — MikeL

Sure, if one can absorb themselves into this mathematical absurdity.

But even then, only one path ends up being walked. — MikeL

Actually no. You, whoever you might be, is spread out over an infinite mega-universe that is growing exponentially all the time. Do you understand that your concept is far more fantastic than a God. All because of a pre-defined goal of no-God, fated universe. Oh well, one fantasy is as good as the next.

Perhaps an important conceptual point to consider is that probability does have an outcome — MikeL

This works. The problem is, and this will end our conversation, is that if I was interested in sci-fi, I would read some of the great authors. For now, I'm interested in philosophy.

You seem to be considering determinability and predictability to be coterminous? — Janus

I'll be honest. I had to look coterminous up. Good word: having the same boundaries or extent in space, time, or meaning. I'm not really thinking in terms of boundaries, other than those of past, present and future. On the face of it the two words seem very similar although I have a little bug on my shoulder telling me there is directional difference between the words. I can't isolate it though.

If you can predict something then it is determinable. If something can be determined then it is predictable- although it may not be considered a prediction if you already know it. Perhaps that's the nagging feeling I have.

The difference is the reference frame. Standing at the present the future is not predictable, however, that it will come to pass is not questioned. A person watching from the future knows the path. That's why we study history. If only Julius Caesar hadn't walked into the forum on that horrible day- but he did, and the rest, as we say, is history - or determined

I would say that determinism, as a metaphysical or ontological postulate, is entirely prejudicial, — Janus

Prejudicial to what?

Your issue is not with determinism. It's with time travel.

I'm only interested in understanding more about the nature of nature. If I want to play parlor games, it would be chess.

If you want to understand more about the nature of nature my advice would be that you start playing palor games. Rigidity of thought is the antithesis of creativity.

If you can predict something then it is determinable. If something can be determined then it is predictable- although it may not be considered a prediction if you already know it. Perhaps that's the nagging feeling I have — MikeL

Have you hear of the "three body problem"? The point is that complex processes are not predictable in any but a probabilistic way. Think of the weather. What will happen weatherwise can be guessed at in an educated (all the more so with the aid of computer modeling) way, but will never be precisely predictable. In any instance of prediction there is always the possibility that we could be way off.

This begs the question as to whether the weather (and the rest of nature) is precisely (rigidly) determined or is merely probabilistic, with genuine novelty always in play and thus there being a truly open future. The point is that we just don't (and cannot) know, and the fact that nature is not 100% predictable could merely be due to our inability to predict complexity, even though that complexity might be 100% rigidly determined. For this reason I cannot say that determinability and predictability are the same.

Prejudicial to what? — MikeL

Prejudicial, that is rationally unfounded, in itself.

A person watching from the future knows the path. — MikeL

I wouldn't say that. I'd say "a person watching from the future" constructs a story of events that he posits as the path.

I wouldn't say that. I'd say "a person watching from the future" constructs a story of events that he posits as the path. — Janus

That's a good point. I guess he would have to be watching from the beginning to know all the path. But yet path there was and it was only the single path.

But yet path there was and it was only the single path. — MikeL

So we do assume.

I think I see your argument. That things are essentially unknowable and therefore cannot be said to be determined (known).

The counter though would be to argue that you don't need to know the complexity to see the path that results. Even if the path is ultimately immeasurable at the quantum level, it is only immeasurable to you.

Ultimately a path was walked, knowable or not, and that path was walked only once and was therefore determined.