Determinism Is Self Defeating

[The Grand Nudger]

You seem to be talking about sufficient causes: the existence of state t guarantees that state t + 1 necessarily arises; specifically, there is no free will, and no hidden variables to interfere with the hypothetical predictability that we could have if all the other impediments to perfect prediction (like digit precision and calculation power) were removed. I have not defined it otherwise.

It shouldn't be surprising that determinism sounds like some invocation of cause - as this is precisely what it is. Correct, if determinism held through and through what we mean when we say "free will" will have been a gross error. But so what? I don't argue from or against consequences.

This is a weird situation. I've never suggested any such position, but you introduced the word in response to one of my posts. Either I didn't explain my position well enough, or you didn't read it carefully enough, or both.

Its the name of the position that adequately encapsulates what you expressed and -called- determinism, or identical with determinism. It is neither.

This would all be relevant, except that you introduced the terms into the discussion.

Yes, I did, as you seemed to be unaware that the positions you were describing already had their own terminology distinct from determinism for very good reasons. Had you argued against determinism itself, rather than offering up these positions and arguments against them or consequence of them then there would have been no need to correct you.

I would be more than happy to discard fatalism and predetermination, because the thread was doing fine without them.

I don't think that you would. Because those two positions are ones which allow free will and mind as you seem to conceive it. Those two are not enemies of free will or mind as we conceive it - your main cause and the origin of our disagreement.

I believe that you only introduced them because you mistook my meaning when I said the words "set in stone." All I meant by that was that in causal determinism, for any given time, no matter how far in the future, there is only one possible state of the universe.

Which would be untrue, in the case of a deterministic model - but true in the case of a predetermined model. You believe wrong, as is so often the case with beliefs. You have expressed a viewpoint and argued against it- concluding that some other thing must then be held in this light. Fatalism is not predetermination is not determinism. Arguing against one is not arguing against another. If the position you;re arguing against is more adequately called something other than what you have concluded...what have you done?

If you think there is any openness in the future states that the universe will arrive at, you should probably explain its mechanism. If you think there is not any openness, then understand that's what I was referring to.

Under the deterministic model there is "openness" with regards to some non-specific future event. Under predeterminism there is not, and under fatalism there may be but it doesn't matter anyway as you are unable to affect it.