Pretty much. So presumes the universe is determinate, then concludes that we cannot make choices:

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

‘Do you remember—’
‘I have a … very good memory, thank you.’
‘Do you ever wonder what life would have been like if you’d said yes?’ said Ridcully.
‘No.’
‘I suppose we’d have settled down, had children, grandchildren, that sort of thing …’
Granny shrugged. It was the sort of thing romantic idiots said. But there was something in the air tonight …
‘What about the fire?’ she said.
‘What fire?’
‘Swept through our house just after we were married. Killed us both.’
‘What fire? I don’t know anything about any fire?’
Granny turned around.
‘Of course not! It didn’t happen. But the point is, it might have happened. You can’t say “if this didn’t happen then that would have happened” because you don’t know everything that might have happened. You might think something’d be good, but for all you know it could have turned out horrible. You can’t say “If only I’d …” because you could be wishing for anything. The point is, you’ll never know. You’ve gone past. So there’s no use thinking about it. So I don’t.’ — Terry Pratchet

Counterfactuals are recondite. You can’t say “if this didn’t happen then that would have happened” because you don’t know everything that might have happened.

Pratchett, Terry. Lords And Ladies: (Discworld Novel 14) (Discworld series) (pp. 162-163). Transworld. Kindle Edition.

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. — Truth Seeker

Oh! From one point of view, if I had become a criminal, the resulting person wouldn't be me. My identity is made up of bits of my history. If I'd had a different history, I'd be a different person, maybe closely kin to me, like a cousin. Therefore I can't have a different history.

Or we could just look at it via modal logic. That's just looking at alternatives, nothing metaphysical.

Pretty much. So ↪180 Proof presumes the universe is determinate, then concludes that we cannot make choices:

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

He's right. If you look at the universe as a monolith where everything is interrelated, determinism is the outcome.

How do you know this? — Truth Seeker

Know it?

It's about making sense form your question, working out wha tit is you asked.

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

We can consider how things would have been different if you had chose not to post your OP. You know this, and can readily bring to mind how things would be if you had gone for a walk rather than posting on the forums.

And that is all you are asking.

Unless you wanted to know if the universe were deterministic, in the way 180 seems to suppose. But then, what would that mean? That if we rolled the universe back to how it was before your post, and set it in motion again, would things always turn out exactly the same? But we know that the sort of infinite precision that is suggested here is not physically possible, from Heisenberg. Things would proceed differently.

That's not what the physics says, if that is what you are asking.

if I had become a criminal, the resulting person wouldn't be me — frank

Then who became the criminal? "I" is a rigid designation, picking you out in every possible world, including those in which your nefarious self comes to the fore.

That's were Pratchet enters the equation.

I am trying to understand how choices are made and if our choices are inevitable or not. Could I have refrained from posting in this forum? I don't know. Could I have posted a different question? I don't know. Was my post inevitable? I don't know.

I'll go over the physics again, becasue I think it a point worth making.

The universe is not deterministic in the way Newtonian physics suggested. It's not that we could measure the position of everything in the universe to any arbitrary level of precession. If we measure the momentum of an object to a greater degree of precession, we loose precession in the measurement of it's position. We can't have both.

Supose we take the universe back to before did the OP, and ask, if we did it again, would everything happen in the exact same way? And here we might be asking one of two different things. If you are asking us to take the universe back to the exact same state as it was before the OP, and set it rolling again, then physics says that the notion of "the exact same state" does not make sense, because there can be no such measurement of the state of the universe. But if you are imagining not a physical state but a modal state, the universe just as it was, then of course the exact same thing would happen again... becasue that is what you are supposing in your modal ruminations.

I am trying to understand how choices are made and if our choices are inevitable or not. — Truth Seeker

Yep. And the answer (at least in part) is to consider in a bit more detail what you are asking. You can consider how things would have been had you not posted the OP - you would not be reading this post, for one, and might be doing something much more gratifying. In that sense, of course you might have done otherwise than you actually did.

And then there is consideration of what you might do next. Will you finish reading this paragraph, or go do something else? You might do either, but you will have to wait to find out which you actually do. And only one or the other will actually occur; you can't both read this paragraph to the end and not read it to the end. Is it inevitable that you read this far? Well, my prose has kept you enthralled, I suppose, since here you are.

But you might have done otherwise.

Then who became the criminal? "I" is a rigid designation, picking you out in every possible world, including those in which your nefarious self comes to the fore. — Banno

:grin: Yes, I'm aware that I'm giving voice to the problem that rigid designation was supposed to solve.

Your identity is your history. If you'd had a different history, you'd be a different person. It's true. Rigid designation only makes sense of certain turns of phrase, it doesn't cover all that we believe about identity.

Cool. Then this:

If I'd had a different history, I'd be a different person, maybe closely kin to me, like a cousin. Therefore I can't have a different history. — frank

is a tautology, because you are now identifying yourself as your history, not as frank. All you are saying is that the person who did not become a criminal did not become a criminal.

Well, I'm saying the person who didn't become a criminal, couldn't have become a criminal. It's more than a tautology, although I'll grant, not much more.

But you might have done otherwise. — Banno

But I didn't do otherwise. Is it inevitable that I posted the original post and read your last reply and typed these words?

No, you didn't do otherwise. But you can give consideration to how things woudl be had you done otherwise.

Was that inevitable? Well, what does 'inevitable" do? It's origin is "not avoidable", and now that you have read that paragraph it is unavoidable that you read it. But you still might not have read it, and this thread might then be shorter.

So the answer to "Could anyone have made a different choice in the past than the ones they made?" is that yes, it makes sense to consider how things might have been.

I have a science background, so I approach philosophy with that in consideration at all times.

What determines who chooses what? If the choices are determined by genes, environments, nutrients and experiences, are the choices free? — Truth Seeker

Are we free agents or are our choices determined by variables such as genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences? — Truth Seeker

Depends on one's definition of 'free'. A compatibilist would say yes even if physics is fully deterministic, but a compatibilist might have a completely different definition of 'free' than somebody wanting to rationalize a different view.
A better definition is 'not compelled by something not you'. Nothing in a deterministic universe compels a different decision than the one you want. Hence compatibilism.

OK, your second quote there implies that 'free' means at least "not determined by that list of variables", in which case probably not, but why in the world would you want that kind of 'free'? Sounds like a formula for horrible choice making.

If I had the genes of a banana tree instead of my genes, could I have typed these words? I don't think so.

Your genes influence your general makup (what you grew up to be), but are for the most part not consulted in any way for making a particular decision.
If you were conceived with banana genes, then you'd have grown up into a banana plant. But if your human genes were all suddenly switched into banana genes shortly before ordering ice cream, you'd probably pick the same flavor, and only later get sick and die because you are failing as a banana plant. Not a biologist, so I don't know how fast it would happen, but it would very much happen.

If I had the genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences that you have, would I not have typed your post and vice versa? — Truth Seeker

To me, that sounds like 'if nothing was different, then would anything different happen?'. What exactly is different when you say those words? You seem to have left nothing out. What is being swapped here?

What I am exploring here is whether our choices are inevitable or not. — Truth Seeker

This has to do with which interpretation of physics (if any of the known ones) happens to be the case. In some, yes, all inevitable.There are several definitions of 'determined' and several of them need to be not the case for the sort of 'free' that you seem to have in mind. Most non-deterministic interpretations are alternatively fundamentally random, which doesn't allow any more freedom than a non-random interpretation. Rolling dice is a very poor way to make decisions that matter, which is why there are no structures in human physiology that leverage natural randomness. And there very much would be such structures if there was useful information to be found in it. Evolution would not ignore any advantage like that.

I think a better way to think of it is that the real world is run by randomness constrained by deterministic processes. — T Clark

No idea what that means.

Are the choices we make not determined by our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences? If they are determined, then wouldn't identical choices result from identical variables?

If I had the genes of a banana tree instead of my genes, I would indeed have grown up to be a banana tree instead of an adult human provided I had the appropriate environment and nutrients. Since banana trees are not sentient, they can't experience anything. I am trying to work out if anyone deserves any credit or blame for their choices. If the choices we make are the products of variables we didn't choose e.g. genes, environments, nutrients and experiences, then how can we be credited or blamed for anything?

...determined... — Truth Seeker

Sure. If your genes were different, you might have acted differently. If your environment were different, you might not have had access to this web site. If you had skipped breakfast, you might have been too tiered to bother posting. That's not to say that even if your genes had been different, you may have acted in the very same way. If your environment had been different, you may have changed it so as to gain access to this site. Had you skipped breakfast, you might nevertheless have still made the OP.

"...they are determined" just means that identical choices would result in the same outcome. So yes, if they are determined, then identical choices would result from identical variables.

See how much how you ask the question sets up the answer you get?

if they are determined, then identical choices would result from identical variables. — Banno

I agree. How would I know with 100% certainty if they are determined or not?

I agree. How would I know with 100% certainty if they are determined or not

There are two ways, both impractical to (currently) impossible. First one could predict with 100% accuracy, outcomes from detailed knowledge of the brainstate before the "decision" was made or second, if you could set up more than one example of identical brainstates then demonstrate that they always make the same "decision".

However, in my opinion, there are too many examples of "close enough" scenarios of the second situation resulting in wildly different outcomes to personally believe in Determinism.

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

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. — noAxioms

The OP raises whether or not it's possible to 'change the past' of the actual world (i.e. retroactively making a choice different from the choice that already has been made); imo counterpart choices in 'parallel / possible worlds' are not relevant to the question at hand.

So 180 Proof presumes the universe is determinate, then concludes that we cannot make choices — Banno

My reply to the OP is consistent with compatibilism – not your strawman.

:cool:

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? — Truth Seeker

Choice itself implies the act of choosing was made by the person and the person's free will.

If I had the genes of a banana tree instead of my genes, could I have typed these words? I don't think so. — Truth Seeker

Banana tree gene is irrelevant premise for your conclusion. It makes no sense at all. There are many other reasons why you typed the post, other than your genes. But most of all, it was your free will which typed your posts.

The OP raises whether or not it's possible to 'change the past' of the actual world ( — 180 Proof

If that is how you read it, well, no. The past is kinda fixed.

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

If the universe is of determinant forces and constraints, then it is determinant.

So not seeing any disagreement here.

Banana tree gene is irrelevant premise for your conclusion. It makes no sense at all. There are many other reasons why you typed the post, other than your genes. But most of all, it was your free will which typed your posts. — Corvus

If I had the genes of a banana tree, instead of my human genes, I would have grown into a banana tree, provided I was in the appropriate environment and received the appropriate nutrients. Since no banana tree is sentient and types in English, it would have been impossible for me to post anything on this forum.

What do you mean by free will? My will is certainly not free from my genes, environments, nutrients and experiences. I think my will is both determined and constrained by my genes, environments, nutrients and experiences.

If I had the genes of a banana tree instead of my genes — Truth Seeker

I answered that query as best I could. It makes no sense to ask (if X happened to be not-X, what would happen?). So of course a tree doesn't make the same decisions as a person, but I don't see how that's relevant to the topic.

I am trying to work out if anyone deserves any credit or blame for their choices.

Of course they do. Free choice is not needed at all for that. Common misconception. It is only needed for external responsibility (like responsible to some entity not part of the causal physics), but it is not needed to be held responsible by say my society, which IS part of the universe.

If the choices we make are the products of variables we didn't choose e.g. genes, environments, nutrients and experiences, then how can we be credited or blamed for anything?

Because it's not those variables that made the choice, it is how you process them into the chosen selection that matters.

The OP raises whether or not it's possible to 'change the past' of the actual world (i.e. retroactively making a choice different from the choice that already has been made) — 180 Proof

I didn't read it that way. No explicit mention of retrocausality, only the proposal that it might have possibly evolved differently from some given prior state. That answer is, as I said, a matter of interpretation. BTW, any non-local interpretation allows some retrocausality, but does not allow information to go back. So some occurrence might be a function of some event that has not yet happened (interpretation of delayed choice experiments), but a message cannot be sent to the past by such a mechanism, and to 'change the past' would seem to require the latter ability.

imo counterpart choices in 'parallel / possible worlds' are not relevant to the question at hand.

It is a different evolution of some same initial state. I find that relevant, but since that person in the other world is arguably not 'you', then 'you' didn't do the other thing. You can't both have chosen both vanilla and chocolate (twist is a third choice, not 'doing otherwise').

Because it's not those variables that made the choice, it is how you process them into the chosen selection that matters. — noAxioms

It's the variables (genes, environments from conception to the present, nutrients from conception to the present and experiences from the womb to the present) that determine my perceptions, thoughts, emotions, values, words and actions. For example, if I had the genes of a banana tree instead of my genes, I would never have been sentient and hence I would never have been able to think any thoughts. If aliens kidnapped me when I was a baby and placed on the surface of Venus, I would have died from the heat. If I was deprived of all nutrients when I was a zygote, I would never have lived long enough to become a human who can post messages online. If I never experienced learning the English language, I would not have been able to post in English on this forum. As you can see from my examples, my choices are the products of variables.

If I had the genes of a banana tree, instead of my human genes, I would have grown into a banana tree, provided I was in the appropriate environment and received the appropriate nutrients. Since no banana tree is sentient and types in English, it would have been impossible for me to post anything on this forum. — Truth Seeker

No humans have banana tree gene. What is the point of telling us that? It is irrelevant point, and there is no logical link for what you are claiming.

What do you mean by free will? My will is certainly not free from my genes, environments, nutrients and experiences. I think my will is both determined and constrained by my genes, environments, nutrients and experiences. — Truth Seeker

Your idea of free will doesn't have boundary or definition, and it is not a correct concept. "genes, environments, nutrients and experiences" are not relevant elements for having free will.

My point is not irrelevant. My point is that my choices are not free from my genes, environments from conception to the present, nutrients from conception to the present and experiences from the womb to the present. If you went back in time and altered any of the variables, you would also change my choices.

Free will means that you are free to choose on a particular matter from what you are given and as a living being, be it gene, environments, nutrients or whatever the case.

I am not denying that I have a will. I am saying that my will is not free from determinants and constraints.

Using the concepts without implied boundaries and definitions within the concepts will cause confusions like that. Philosophical investigation is to point out these misuses of the concepts.