Limited Meaningful path(s) vs All possible paths equally valid

A question that arises if one starts to analyze their surroundings is what is the cause of them, as individuals, existing at this point in this specific time and place with this specific series of events, many of which can drastically overpower what little options one has in this highly limited state.   Though some do not seem to question the limitations of the human state, taking it for given, due to the accumulation of the works of the imagination and their ever more realistic displays more and more are coming to question these limitations.    Though some still dismiss the possibility of transcending such limitations as unrealistic, or fantasy.

But even if these limitations were only temporary, the present state still demands an explanation.

One possibility, the multiverse like possibility, is that all possible events and actions take place one path or possibility not being ruled out, but basically everything is possible and is, someone was bound to experience this.   Another possibility is that even though everything is possible in principle, there are certain set of paths for which there is predilection, that are favored, perhaps by something akin to logical necessity, the rest of the paths confined to fiction or subset worlds of the main line or structure.

When one looks at mathematical statements once a series of symbols or statements is assigned a particular meaning, what derives from them and their combination is constrained by the necessity of their validity due to their being part of the body of truth.

Counterfactuals

The basic idea of counterfactual theories of causation is that the meaning of causal claims can be explained in terms of counterfactual conditionals of the form “If A had not occurred, C would not have occurred”. While counterfactual analyses have been given of type-causal concepts, most counterfactual analyses have focused on singular causal or token-causal claims of the form “event c caused event e”. -source

While the logic of counterfactuals is sensible when it comes to describing objects and possibilities, it could be the case that if there exists deeper causality to the world, an event running counter to its actual evolution could very well be a logical impossibility given the same state, logically inconsistent if it were different.   It could be no other way.

There are those that argue against determinism, but to truly differ from determinism you would need randomness, not just pseudorandomness, but actual true randomness.

These stochastic processes are, in theory, completely unpredictable, and the theory's assertions of unpredictability are subject to experimental test. This is in contrast to the common paradigm of pseudo-random number generation commonly implemented in computer programs or cryptographic hardware. -hardware true random number generator

But true randomness itself could very well be not just an ill defined concept but an illogical concept.  The past is not subject to change, and the present and future that follow are highly dependent on that lack of change.   No other decision could have been made, even the most minute of decisions would have significantly changed the positions of even atoms in the atmosphere making them inconsistent with their present and future positions.   A radioactive atoms, of which there are some in the food and air, and in the drinks, it cannot be the case that it ever decayed anywhere in the body of the long line of ancestors of present humans in such a way as to result in adding the last mutation to make a cell into a lethal cancer prior to their lives reaching the point where such was the case if it was the case.

Not just Einstein or Hitler, but even all those of lesser fame, their contribution upon the future cannot be changed by a change to the past, the past is fixed in stone, or it would make it inconsistent with the present and the future.

Supported by Block time, the idea that relativity suggests absolute simultaneity does not exist, the absolute present does not exist, but that the nature of what we call the present as well as the future does not have a boundary or transition with the past, but all is equal in nature to the past.

The foundation of the philosophy of eternalism, all moments eternal, atemporal.

Eternalism is a philosophical approach to the ontological nature of time, which takes the view that all existence in time is equally real, as opposed to presentism or the growing block universe theory of time, in which at least the future is not the same as any other time.^[1] Some forms of eternalism give time a similar ontology to that of space, as a dimension, with different times being as real as different places, and future events are "already there" in the same sense other places are already there, and that there is no objective flow of time.^[2] It is sometimes referred to as the "block time" or "block universe" theory due to its description of space-time as an unchanging four-dimensional "block",^[3] as opposed to the view of the world as a three-dimensional space modulated by the passage of time. -Eternalism

It could be that such a structure, may have an internal logic, a reason why certain laws apply, and even a certain set of events takes place.

Perhaps.   Perhaps there is underlying structure and logic to it all.   It just seems that underneath the clay of all the possibilities, many of which may be truly nonsensical, within some path or paths with seeming meaning and logic may lay.

If it were that all paths are possible or real in some sense, one wonders what defines or determines the path experienced and the constraints within it.

It all boils down to the nature of truth, is it some meaningless blob where all possibilities are equally valid, or is there a reason for certain things to be in the grander scheme of things, an underlying structure and logic to reality, to existence itself.   Right now mathematics suggests that once an initial series of elements is taken into account, from these emerges a vast body of structure, and not all combinations, not all possibilities or statements are logically valid, are true, some are and some aren't.   Does what holds for mathematics hold in the grander scheme of things of the real world?

Another Free will vs determinism comment

      Free will vs determinism comment

Was listening to Molyneux's audio book:
Universally Preferable Behavior


Molyneux argues that if you're not responsible arguing with you is like arguing with a television set.   But that does not follow,  A TV normally has no way to causally interact with complex language in a meaningful way.    A language interaction, like a physical interaction with a bunch of rocks, can change the configuration and the responses of more complex matter in a causal manner.    Causality, and meaningful interaction, cares not about personal responsibility.

All that is required for arguing to be effective, is that the entity being argued with has the capacity to understand the language and arguments being made and be causally affected by these.    When you set a clock, it matters not whether the clock has free will, it only matters that the knobs are able to causally influence it.  Likewise,  an argument received upon the sensory organs interact with the nervous tissue, and causally influences it.

There are several lines of attack against free will, a few examples follow.

1. Relativity of simultaneity seems to imply block time, or the existence of a 4 dimensional chunk of space time where both future and past are identical in quality and immutable.

2.Postdiction, there is evidence to suggest that conscious sensation occurs after an event has taken place, if you're conscious of past events, we all know the past is proven immutable.   Thus any idea that you're changing what you're conscious of, if it refers to the past, is nothing more than an illusion.

3.It is believed there are mechanisms producing action selection.  If a bunch of components following rules create a mechanism that chooses action, it is the components and the mechanism that explain your choice, and cause your choice, your sensation of choice is but an illusion.

That said if  there is any basis to have preferable behavior, or preferable long term goals, determinism would ensure the optimal outcome if one or more entities increased in capacity and knowledge without bound.   If there is anything that allows deviation, in an infinite universe with potentially vast numbers of entities with unbound growth in capacity, optimal outcome might not be guaranteed.

PS
More on free will

free will molyneux youtube series link

Our capacity to reason and compare, does not mean we somehow transcend the mechanisms that should be explainable in a reductionist manner.  Mechanisms that result from the interaction of our components.  We can posit a computer program with similar capacity, yet it can't transcend the limits of computation.

That said, it still may be preferable to behave as if people are responsible and there is morality.   Eventually we may be able to rewire brain circuitry to behave more in accordance with our "moral standards".  We will be able to tell whether a criminal will behave "morally" or "immorally" with high probability, and detain them indefinitely if they do not rewire to behave "morally" with high probability, if there's high probability of "immoral" serious criminal behavior if they're released.

if you could rapidly put something in the way of the falling bolder, or fire a projectile at the bolder it may change its course. Nervous tissue can react and change in response to an argument that falls upon the sensory organs. 

If the TV had true ai, you could argue with it. But your exchange of information with a tv, is usually more meaningful through the buttons or knobs, it may respond to basic voice commands but not complex language interaction. A clock if you want meaningful change, you turn the knobs. A human, you can change through exposure to arguments. 

I think we can potentially have determinism and preferable behavior by some standard. And things can change but in a determined manner. Emotions can be elicited in a determined manner, and as said change too. That said determinism changes the perspective on "Moral" wrongdoing from punishment and blame to rehabilitation and help. 

____________________________________________
Humans have language, perhaps some other kind of animal has some kind of language, but it is unreasonable to use language with entities that lack the capacity for language.   Humans also have general intelligence.  It is expected artificial machines may eventually have general intelligence and the ability to use language.

A rock can't change its mind but its path can be changed if a gust of wind, a projectile or something gets in its path.   The mind can be changed in the same way, the underlying mechanisms behind it, can take a different turn upon exposure to external information.

The question with regards to changing mind, is whether given a set of information the outcome is determined or not.  Say you were planning to invest on X company, and you got information X company is a scam, from a very reliable source, your decision to still invest or not, is it determined?  Or is there any way the outcome regards your decision is not determined? Regards determinists and changing minds, they simply believe whether they'll succeed in changing someone's mind or fail is already predetermined, not that they can't change minds but that the outcome of the attempt is already set in stone..

Comment on free will and the brain

free will brain

"Their study showed that although injuries disrupting volition — the desire to act — can occur in many different locations, they fall within the same brain network. Injuries disrupting agency — the feeling of responsibility for carrying out those actions — also can occur in many different locations, but they fall within a separate network. "

https://neurosciencenews.com/free-will-brain-networks-9947/

This is the problem for those trying to defend free will, and moral responsibility.    An agent that is divisible, that is an agent who has various components that follow rules and generate behavior, in the end is not responsible for its actions.   This inner environment, these cogs in the machine, they are the causal roots of its behavior, no different in kind from external elements or causes.

True Free will requires an indivisible agent external to the causal chain of the world, but such a being may not make sense.

RESPONSE TO DETERMINISM DEBUNKED video

RESPONSE:

The problem is "What" is doing the comparing. If it is machines, either random or deterministic, these "MACHINES" or cells, are an internal cause no different than an external rock or push or gun moving you in one direction or another. A computer program can follow algorithms similar to those coded by the genes and implemented in the neural tissue, able to learn and think. 

There is nothing to preclude the possible existence of agi, which would be a being able to debate.


 There are individuals with defects in the neural tissue that significantly increase their probability of deviancy, criminal activity, gambling, etc.


 If a person be it by genetic engineering or artificial implant, is made such that they have a high probability of consenting to say X activity, that does not make it a free decision on their part. The inbuild biases, and limitations, in normal humans also make their decisions not free. Doesn't matter if the causal chain is random, deterministic, from natural or artificial sources, in any case there is no true freedom. 


True freedom of choice necessitates, an undivisible non-machine agent, but all conscious agents are the product of algorithm following machinery.


PS EDITAGAIN INTERNAL TO THE BRAIN IS STILL 'EXTERNAL' to you as a person in the sense of free will.  An implant that causes you to consent to X, does not mean you freely chose X.  It is internal to your brain. The various cells and brain regions are no different from natural implants causing each and every one of your actions.  And just like an implant, when it comes to the natural tissue, there are biases and limitations that alter your probability of doing any action.

Tumors, Brain damage, or more subtle molecular or wiring differences can lead to serious differences in the probability of different outcomes in different situations.   This is entirely out of your control.

PPS
You can think and evaluate, but the process follows internal causal chain of algorithms, and cannot be changed by you.   This is without talking about ideas like the "relativity of simultaneity", and eternalism, that say the 'present' is no different from the 'past', and as locked in stone as the past.