Free Will

[frugalnacho]

It sounds like a semantic thing.  I think we understand each other.

To me, predetermined means it was determined before the choice was made.
Determined is that it was determined at the time the choice was made.

There can be things that influence that decision immediately before, perhaps even simultaneously (though I'd have to think through the implications of that, and if it's possible).

But if you take free will out of the equation, and say everything is based on causal determinism, then I don't understand the difference. 

If you write a computer program, and program it with specific logic, and then set some initial condition, and then let it run...

You can determine what step will be taken next (because it follows a set of logical rules), and then the next step, ... and the final step.  Is that final outcome predetermined?  Or is it not predetermined, and just determined once the computer actually makes that final choice, even though you know exactly what it is going to be because it could not possibly have been anything else?

[arebelspy]

It sounds like a semantic thing.  I think we understand each other.

To me, predetermined means it was determined before the choice was made.
Determined is that it was determined at the time the choice was made.

There can be things that influence that decision immediately before, perhaps even simultaneously (though I'd have to think through the implications of that, and if it's possible).

But if you take free will out of the equation, and say everything is based on causal determinism, then I don't understand the difference. 

If you write a computer program, and program it with specific logic, and then set some initial condition, and then let it run...

You can determine what step will be taken next (because it follows a set of logical rules), and then the next step, ... and the final step.  Is that final outcome predetermined?  Or is it not predetermined, and just determined once the computer actually makes that final choice, even though you know exactly what it is going to be because it could not possibly have been anything else?

I don't think everything is set up that way.

You're implying both a beginning and an external frame of reference.

But if you want to think of them as the same, that's fine.

I see a distinction in saying it's not yet determined (i.e. predetermined) what you will eat for lunch the 472nd Tuesday from now, but it will be determined when you get there.

That is, at this point, it's not yet determined because all the antecedent causes haven't yet happened.  But like I said, if you want to think of it that way, because they will happen, that's fine too.  It doesn't really matter.

[frugalnacho]

It sounds like a semantic thing.  I think we understand each other.

To me, predetermined means it was determined before the choice was made.
Determined is that it was determined at the time the choice was made.

There can be things that influence that decision immediately before, perhaps even simultaneously (though I'd have to think through the implications of that, and if it's possible).

But if you take free will out of the equation, and say everything is based on causal determinism, then I don't understand the difference. 

If you write a computer program, and program it with specific logic, and then set some initial condition, and then let it run...

You can determine what step will be taken next (because it follows a set of logical rules), and then the next step, ... and the final step.  Is that final outcome predetermined?  Or is it not predetermined, and just determined once the computer actually makes that final choice, even though you know exactly what it is going to be because it could not possibly have been anything else?

I don't think everything is set up that way.

You're implying both a beginning and an external frame of reference.

But if you want to think of them as the same, that's fine.

I see a distinction in saying it's not yet determined (i.e. predetermined) what you will eat for lunch the 472nd Tuesday from now, but it will be determined when you get there.

That is, at this point, it's not yet determined because all the antecedent causes haven't yet happened.  But like I said, if you want to think of it that way, because they will happen, that's fine too.  It doesn't really matter.

But every antecedent cause that will happen is already determined by other antecedent causes.  Every action between now and the 472nd tuesday is already (pre)determined and cannot turn out any other way than the way it will eventually turn out.   I (or you, or anyone) don't know what I will eat that day...but if you believe in determinism, don't believe in randomness or freewill, then whatever I end up having for lunch that day is already determined and cannot be different from what it actually is.  If it could be different for any reason then I think your entire argument falls apart.

[arebelspy]

Correct, I agree with all of that from a deterministic viewpoint.

[arebelspy]

Today's Raptitude reminded me of this free will debate.

http://www.raptitude.com/2014/11/two-reasons-to-believe/

Free will is quite comforting.

[dragoncar]

It sounds like a semantic thing.  I think we understand each other.

To me, predetermined means it was determined before the choice was made.
Determined is that it was determined at the time the choice was made.

There can be things that influence that decision immediately before, perhaps even simultaneously (though I'd have to think through the implications of that, and if it's possible).

If it's determined at the time the choice was made, and not before, then there must be factors affecting the decision that don't follow a deterministic chain, and would be most people's conception of "free will."  You may be switching sides if you accept that some things are only determined in the moment they happen.

[frugalnacho]

It sounds like a semantic thing.  I think we understand each other.

To me, predetermined means it was determined before the choice was made.
Determined is that it was determined at the time the choice was made.

There can be things that influence that decision immediately before, perhaps even simultaneously (though I'd have to think through the implications of that, and if it's possible).

If it's determined at the time the choice was made, and not before, then there must be factors affecting the decision that don't follow a deterministic chain, and would be most people's conception of "free will."  You may be switching sides if you accept that some things are only determined in the moment they happen.

Pretty much what I was trying to say.

[arebelspy]

They're determined at that moment because all the antecedent causes haven't happened yet before that moment.

[Grid]

They're determined at that moment because all the antecedent causes haven't happened yet before that moment.

"Antecedent" implies happening earlier in time, so I would say that statement is somewhat bogus.

[dragoncar]

They're determined at that moment because all the antecedent causes haven't happened yet before that moment.

"Antecedent" implies happening earlier in time, so I would say that statement is somewhat bogus.

You're just not thinking Fifth dimensionally!  You see, the antecedent causes had will have had happened at that moment, but had haven't yet have had happened before that moment.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2014/10/20/back_to_the_future_tense_big_bang_theory_and_douglas_adams_on_time_travel.html

[arebelspy]

They're determined at that moment because all the antecedent causes haven't happened yet before that moment.

"Antecedent" implies happening earlier in time, so I would say that statement is somewhat bogus.

"Prior" causes doesn't necessarily mean prior in time.

That aside, I just mean in terms of if we're looking out to time X, and there is time between now and X, then an action at X isn't determined yet because there are antecedent causes between now and X.  That's what I mean by the antecedent causes haven't happened yet - by the time we get to X they will have.

[Grid]

They're determined at that moment because all the antecedent causes haven't happened yet before that moment.

"Antecedent" implies happening earlier in time, so I would say that statement is somewhat bogus.

"Prior" causes doesn't necessarily mean prior in time.

That aside, I just mean in terms of if we're looking out to time X, and there is time between now and X, then an action at X isn't determined yet because there are antecedent causes between now and X.  That's what I mean by the antecedent causes haven't happened yet - by the time we get to X they will have.

I had to do some rereading, but I see what you're talking about.

[Primm]

There can be things that influence that decision immediately before, perhaps even simultaneously (though I'd have to think through the implications of that, and if it's possible).

Watch this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGUCFCy3hTE&spfreload=10

Stephen Hawking does a really good job of simply explaining neurone firing and brain electrical activity and how it leads to a decision being made which wasn't really a decision / choice but was in fact what was going to happen based on all the events leading up to that "decision", although the person "making" it believes that he chose to do what he did. I wasn't sure before I saw this episode, now I think I agree with him.