Free will re-redux

[Laird]

It's also not a proof of anything related to causation.

True. I was leaving that point to you to make in your ongoing exchange.

That's not the bug...

Oh you mean the "x equals false". No, that's not a bug, that's just the other string that would get output, it doesn't matter what's in it, I could've set it to output "black" and that also wouldn't be wrong.

[Laird]

it is sort of assertiony and that could arguably break it.

I think the only even vaguely contestable premise is the second, but the fact that billions of people all over the world and throughout history (have) conceive(d) of themselves as making free choices which are neither forced (necessitated) nor random, and have not conceived of this as entailing a contradiction, makes it very difficult to contest.

[Laird]

Oh you mean the "x equals false".

Nope, not that either.

It's also not a proof of anything related to causation.

Yes it is, rather plainly obviously, you're just being facetious. And with that I leave this pointless discussion

[Laird]

And with that I leave this pointless discussion

Not until you find the bug!

Yes it is, rather plainly obviously, you're just being facetious. And with that I leave this pointless discussion

And to the surprise of no one you now rage quit, though my guess is you'll jump in again to insult me. Which as a display of online tough guy shaming is always amusing, doubly so now because you're arguing for the idea that how I act is out of my control.

But for anyone else, the idea of procedural steps being examples of decision making was already discussed at least twice in this thread. The actual decision is at the level of selecting which possible algorithm or random-ness generation to use in place of making the decision consciously/deliberately.

Of course there's no decision in the code it's explicitly designed that way. I thought you were going to give an actual proof, like something from discrete math or graph theory. I should've known better.

True. I was leaving that point to you to make in your ongoing exchange.

Eh feel free to step in. I find debating Mediochre to just be an endurance test of how many assertions + insults you want to put up with before you get tired.

Paul at least posts some interesting stuff and is cordial about it.

[Laird]

Paul at least posts some interesting stuff and is cordial about it.

Sure - credit where credit is due.

[Laird]

But for anyone else, the idea of procedural steps being examples of decision making was already discussed at least twice in this thread. The actual decision is at the level of selecting which possible algorithm or random-ness generation to use in place of making the decision consciously/deliberately.

In fairness, it is common in some programming/software contexts to refer to "decisions" made in/by code, and I think the "proof" that Mediochre intended was an implicit one along the lines of:

1. If it is possible to provide an example of code with decision-points in it which in general is reliably executed by computers in this world, then there exists an example of "how" deterministic choices happen.
   
2. Here is an example of code with decision-points in it which in general is reliably executed by computers in this world, thus it is possible to provide such an example.
   
3. Therefore, there exists an example of "how" deterministic choices happen.
   

I think the first premise could be contested along the lines you've argued in this thread, but the implicit argument is at least valid.