That can be answered with yes or no, depending on how you look at it.

What's your answer?

If we couldn’t ever have made a different choice in the past, we didn’t ever make any choice at all. So because of the semantics of the question, the answer has to be “yes”.

This is a good vehicle into the underlying question, do we ever “choose” our actions? Are we agents in our own story? Is there free will? Are we capable of halting the forces of necessity to deliberately influence our self-same lives?

I have to say yes because otherwise, I am not writing this post. If the forces of nature have led me to spell the word “led” without an “a” (as in “lead, both of which follow the laws of grammar), and if I should remove “me” from the equations of this sentence, it seems to me I wouldn’t have ever noticed a difference between nature and myself in the first place and would never have seen the choice between “led” and “lead”.

If all of science was completed and reported to everyone as from God, and this report said “all moves by determined necessity and there are no choices” I would still have to choose to believe this, or not, before the motion of this thread could go about its merry way.

Could anyone have made a different choice in the past than the ones they made? — Truth Seeker

Depends on several factors. Ignoring choice of deterministic interpretation of things or otherwise, in what way would this entity that makes a different choice in the past be you, or relative to what would that choice be 'different'? What ties you (that choses vanilla) to the possible T-S that choses chocolate?

I didn't vote because the question was vaguely worded.

If we couldn’t ever have made a different choice in the past, we didn’t ever make any choice at all. — Fire Ologist

This also depends on definitions, but you seem to be using one that doesn't distinguish choice from free choice, rendering the adjective meaningless.

If we couldn’t ever have made a different choice in the past, we didn’t ever make any choice at all.
— Fire Ologist
This also depends on definitions, but you seem to be using one that doesn't distinguish choice from free choice, rendering the adjective meaningless. — noAxioms

If I “cannot make a different choice” then there is no choice. A choice, by definition, has to involve multiple variables and a deliberative agent whose action influences the outcome among those variables. Take away the agent, and there are no longer any variables identifiable only in a deliberating agent; Take away the variables and there is no choice. So choice involves both a deliberative (free reflecting) agent, and variables.

How else can we define the moving parts of a “choice?” Maybe I have no choice but to finish this paragraph with the word “not.” Maybe the last word of this post has been predicable for ten thousand years. But it seems to me it is more likely a consequence of me and my free choices, that could go any way I am capable of bringing to effect. Maybe not.

Could anyone have made a different choice in the past than the ones they made? — Truth Seeker

Past cannot be changed, so you couldn't have made different choices for the past. But you are free to make choices for now and future.

A choice, by definition, has to involve multiple variables and a deliberative agent whose action influences the outcome among those variables. — Fire Ologist

That's a different definition, and one with which I agree. From that definition, this doesn't follow:

If I “cannot make a different choice” then there is no choice. — Fire Ologist

For example, a chess program has countless variables to ponder (at some length), and has (is) a deliberate agent whose action influences the outcome. If there was no chess program, the action would not be taken, so the influence is clearly there.

But...

given 20 identical programs with the exact same initial state, each will typically do the exact same thing.
They have choice, but not free choice since they can consider, but not actually make a different move. Your assertion presumes not choice, but free choice, which has a different definition (the one the OP uses).

Now take Schrodinger's cat (and a presumption of say Copenhagen interpretation). Given 20 identical cats in boxes with the exact same initial state, about half will die and half not. The cat thus has free choice (could have done otherwise), but sadly has no actual choice (no deliberate agency in the outcome). See the difference? One can have neither, both, or one but not the other.

You seem to be attempting to combine the two into one, with no distinction between the cases, in which case choice and free choice do not mean different things.


The OP (where's he gone?) seems to be leveraging the 'could have done otherwise' definition, not the definition you give, a 'deliberate selection from multiple options'.

Maybe the last word of this post has been predicable for ten thousand years.

I assure you otherwise. Too many people equate 'deterministic' with 'predictable'. The former is interpretation dependent (metaphysics), and the latter is very much known, and is part of fundamental theory.

Past cannot be changed, so you couldn't have made different choices for the past. But you are free to make choices for now and future. — Corvus

This presumes an ontology where events are sorted into past, present, and future. Fine and dandy, but sans an empirical difference, I don't see the point.

But that's one version of determinism: All events share the same ontology, which means the Corvus in 2026 is no more capable of making a 'change' (as the word is used above) as the Corvus in 2020.

The usage of 'change' also implies that some future event is one thing, but later that same event is a different thing. That syntactically makes no sense. It isn't change if it was never something different.

From that definition, this doesn't follow:

If I “cannot make a different choice” then there is no choice.
— Fire Ologist
For example, a chess program has countless variables to ponder (at some length), and has (is) a deliberate agent whose action influences the outcome. If there was no chess program, the action would not be taken, so the influence is clearly there.

But...

given 20 identical programs with the exact same initial state, each will typically do the exact same thing.
They have choice, but not free choice since they can consider, but not actually make a different move. — noAxioms

I never think we can clarify a human behavior at issue, like choosing, by analogizing this behavior with some other type of entity’s behavior (like a chess program). We try to make black and white clarity by mixing gray with gray.

I don’t see any substantial distinction between a choice and a free choice.

In your example of what the computer is doing before it makes a move, why call that a “choice” at all? It is operating on inputs to determine the only move it must make. It is not choosing, but calculating. You said yourself its next move is determined just as it is for the other 19 identical programs. There is no agent, so there are no variables, so there is no choice.

A really good chess player is effectively calculating just as well, and his or her moves may not be choices either.

I see calling what the program does “choosing” as personifying the program. And we don’t yet know what choosing is or if we ever get to choose ourselves, so how are we to judge the program properly anyway?

Can you clarify the difference between a choice and a free choice, and deterministic mo choice using only human behavior as an example?

This presumes an ontology where events are sorted into past, present, and future. Fine and dandy, but sans an empirical difference, I don't see the point. — noAxioms

There are only three types of time perceptions we have. Past, Present and Future.

Past come from the memory i.e. remembering the events in the past. Present comes from our live perception happening now with consciousness for the now. Future comes from our imagination.

If you lost all your memories, then you don't have the past. If you can't imagine, then you don't have any ideas about the future. If you are not conscious, you don't have the present, past or future.

You can only make choices for now. You could also plan to make choices for your future using your imagination and thoughts.

Could anyone have made a different choice in the past than the ones they made? — Truth Seeker

Unless the universe (of determinant forces and constraints on one) changes too, I don't think so.

There's a possible world in which you did not make that OP.

Simple application of modality. Time perceptions and quantum multiple universes are irrelevant.

that's how questions work, that's right

Read the question and decided, against character, to register a response.

Simple application of modality. Time perceptions and quantum multiple universes are irrelevant. — Banno

I don't think modal logic has any metaphysical import though. It's just about the way we think.

that's how questions work, that's right — flannel jesus

Yea.

Lol. I just love the idea of you giving such a useless response every time someone asks you a question.

Did you enjoy that movie last night?

That can be answered with yes or no, depending on how you look at it.

Can I take you out on a date Frank?

That can be answered with yes or no, depending on how you look at it.

Would you like a bit of sloppy toppy Frank?

That can be answered with yes or no, depending on how you look at it.

Are you in pain Frank?

That can be answered with yes or no, depending on how you look at it.

l
Yes. I think it's part of having Asperger's that I notice all the ways a question can be looked at.

Well, I'm pretty sure if someone asks you a question, they just want to know how YOU look at it, not all the other ways it could be looked at lol.

Well, I'm pretty sure if someone asks you a question, they just want to know how YOU look at it, not all the other ways it could be looked at lol. — flannel jesus

Why not look at all the possible answers?

Could anyone have made a different choice in the past than the ones they made? — Truth Seeker

Is the question as expressed here any different from the standard questions about free will and determinism?

Too many people equate 'deterministic' with 'predictable'. The former is interpretation dependent (metaphysics), and the latter is very much known, and is part of fundamental theory. — noAxioms

Yes, I agree with you on this. If we're right, it seems to me the whole question of free will vs. determinism becomes trivial, pointless.

I never think we can clarify a human behavior at issue, like choosing, by analogizing this behavior with some other type of entity’s behavior (like a chess program). — Fire Ologist

I on the other hand avoid the anthropocentric view and broaden my list of examples in order to better understand. I find the chess program to be fundamentally no different than a human in this respect.

I don’t see any substantial distinction between a choice and a free choice.

I noticed, which is why you couldn't tell apart those two very different definitions of choice. I do see a substantial distinction, and so the word 'free' becomes meaningful, and not just redundant.

In your example of what the computer is doing before it makes a move, why call that a “choice” at all?

Because it met your definition of it. I explained how when I brought up the example.

It is operating on inputs to determine the only move it must make.

No, there are many moves that it can make, and it is not compelled to choose any particular one. It evaluates each in turn and selects what it feels is a better one, all the same steps that a person does.The action (the evaluation and the selection) influences the outcome, just as your definition requires. If the choice were compelled, the program would not have influence over the outcome and would thus be unnecessary and the move would make itself, and those chess programs would be ever so much faster, and then it would not meet your definition.

It is not choosing, but calculating.

False dichotomy. Calculating (pondering, whatever) is part of the process leading to the eventual choice. It is not this or that, but rather this that leads to that.

You said yourself its next move is determined just as it is for the other 19 identical programs.

Computers tend to work best with deterministic components, even in the face of a possible non-deterministic physics. There is no 'select randomly' instruction such as is utilized by the cat in my example above. Human physiology is similar in this respect. There seems to be no components that amplify randomness or otherwise produce output that is not a function of prior state.

There is no agent
...
I see calling what the program does “choosing” as personifying the program.

Ooh, anthropomorphism again. Apparently many words only apply to humans and not anything else when doing the exact same thing. The racists used the same tactic to imply that people not 'them' were inferior.
A chess program makes its own moves, so it very much is the agent in those selections.

A really good chess player is effectively calculating just as well, and his or her moves may not be choices either.

Are we changing the definition again? Does a bad chess player make some sort of actual choice when the good one has no agency or something? Your definition wording doesn't seem to support that.

Can you clarify the difference between a choice and a free choice

Well choice is as you define it: The thing in question needs to influence the outcome (be part of, (be the primary) cause of it, given the relevant variables in the input state.

Free choice (as typically defined) means that the primary cause of the outcome did not follow from physical prior state. There is way more than one definition of free choice, but that's a common one, and it is quite distinct from your definition.
The OP doesn't mention the word 'free' at all, but does mention "could have done otherwise" which is an informal alternate definition of it.

Present comes from our live perception happening now — Corvus

Actually it is impossible to perceive the present. You speak of the fairly immediate past, which is what is typically in our active perception at any given time.

You can only make choices for now.

Choosing is a process, and thus cannot happen in an instant, so choosing is spread out over some interval of time regardless of whether you assign unequal ontology to those moments or not.

Could anyone have made a different choice in the past than the ones they made? — Truth Seeker

Unless the universe (of determinant forces and constraints on one) changes too, I don't think so. — 180 Proof

Under any nondeterminist interpretation, one 'could have chosen differently', or even might not have faced the choice at all. It also works under some fully deterministic interpretations like MWI where all possible choices are made in some world.
The key seems to come down to the word 'anyone'. Is that person in some other world that chooses otherwise the same person as you? The answer to that is yes if you're the same person you were last week (different state of course), and no if there is no persistent identity, in which case it is hard to argue that anything makes a choice at all.

Yes, I agree with you on this. If we're right, it seems to me the whole question of free will vs. determinism becomes trivial, pointless. — T Clark

1) Determinism has little to do with free will since the typical definition of free will doesn't become free if randomness is the case instead of determinism. Determinism also has at least 4 different definitions, so that is also unclear.
FW seems to be central to the dualist argument because they way choices to be made by a supernatural agent despite the fact that neither deterministic nor random physics supports that.

Would you like a bit of sloppy toppy Frank? — flannel jesus

Not sure what sloppy toppy is, but it sounds like a bonus they put on your hot chocolate.

OK, I looked it up. Way off.

FW seems to be central to the dualist argument because they way choices to be made by a supernatural agent despite the fact that neither deterministic nor random physics supports that. — noAxioms

I don't see why my only choices are determinism, randomness, or supernatural agency. I think a better way to think of it is that the real world is run by randomness constrained by deterministic processes. I'm not sure what that does for free will.

I picked "I don't know" because I don't know the answer. If I knew the answer, I would not have asked the question on this forum.

Even if all the choices made by all sentient living things are inevitable, we still experience making them. If I had the genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences that you have, would I not have typed your post and vice versa?

I don't think modal logic has any metaphysical import though. It's just about the way we think. — frank

Well, yes. Same with modality.

We can think about how things might have been different. That's what "could" does in "Could anyone have made a different choice in the past than the ones they made?"

Past cannot be changed, so you couldn't have made different choices for the past. But you are free to make choices for now and future. — Corvus

I am not talking about changing the past. What determines who chooses what? If the choices are determined by genes, environments, nutrients and experiences, are the choices free? If I had the genes of a banana tree instead of my genes, could I have typed these words? I don't think so.

Could anyone have made a different choice in the past than the ones they made?
— Truth Seeker
Depends on several factors. Ignoring choice of deterministic interpretation of things or otherwise, in what way would this entity that makes a different choice in the past be you, or relative to what would that choice be 'different'? What ties you (that choses vanilla) to the possible T-S that choses chocolate?

I didn't vote because the question was vaguely worded.

If we couldn’t ever have made a different choice in the past, we didn’t ever make any choice at all.
— Fire Ologist
This also depends on definitions, but you seem to be using one that doesn't distinguish choice from free choice, rendering the adjective meaningless. — noAxioms

What I am exploring here is whether our choices are inevitable or not. Are we free agents or are our choices determined by variables such as genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences?

We can think about how things might have been different. That's what "could" does in "Could anyone have made a different choice in the past than the ones they made?" — Banno

You're saying free will and determinism both come down to the way we think rather than metaphysics? I agree.

Could anyone have made a different choice in the past than the ones they made?
— Truth Seeker
Unless the universe (of determinant forces and constraints on one) changes too, I don't think so. — 180 Proof

I think you are right.

There's a possible world in which you did not make that OP.

Simple application of modality. Time perceptions and quantum multiple universes are irrelevant. — Banno

How do you know this?