drachefly wrote:Ahem. What determines what the magical puppeteers do next? You've just added a layer of indirection, not a solution.
That question is a trick; isn't it? Nothing determines nondeterministic things; the question has no answer, so either you are trying to get us to forget that they are nondeterministic, or else you are having a hard time imagining nondeterminism.
Maybe this will help. Determinism is an extraordinary claim about the structure of the universe; that events are constrained by some set of rules that define those events exactly from the current situation, so if you could know all the rules and all the details of the current situation then you could know everything that would ever happen in the future. Unlike most extraordinary claims, this one has extraordinary evidence from our everyday lives so we tend to believe it, but it's still a very specific idea about the way the universe works much like a religion and it could very easily be wrong if its claims aren't 100% true. If even one subatomic particle has nonlawful movement, that's a nondeterministic universe. Of course I can't describe how that particle moves because any description could be taken as a law, but please don't jump straight to random for its movements; there's a whole world of possible nondeterministic movements between lawful and random. Maybe the particle has social relationships with other particles that influence (but not determine) its movements.
The most important defense that a determinist has against an incompatibilist is the extraordinary complexity of the human brain. It is surely more than enough to deterministically explain free will and everything we value about the experience of being human, if only we completely understood its operation. If you want to imagine a nonrandom nondeterministic universe then simply take away that brain. Imagine a universe that is exactly like real life in every detail, but instead of a brain humans explicitly have souls inside their heads and the soul contains no inner workings, no way to store memories, no circuits or pathways, not even moving molecules as in a fluid. Examining this frustrating object scientifically forces people to conclude that no laws could ever be devised to explain exactly how a person is able to think and the actions that people take. Of course people aren't random in that universe and psychological guidelines could be devised, but laws
are impossible, and not just because they are beyond the human capacity to discover the laws; the laws really don't exist in that nondeterministic universe.
Look at it another way. The whole reason for the existence of incompatibilism is probably the fact that people feel that their decisions are informed by their memories, plans, and desires, but not totally determined by them with absolute lawful certainty. I could go against my plans and ignore my desires if I ever chose to, so I can't imagine what kind of laws could properly describe my mind. Compatibilists like you and I believe that the nonexistence of laws could be an illusion easily generated in the vast complexity of the brain, and it would even be foolish to expect us to be able to introspect the laws that determine our own thoughts. Unfortunately none of that actually proves that the incompatibilists are wrong about the true source of our free will: maybe when we get down to the deepest levels we really will find that no laws can explain all of human decision making.
I'm just trying to get across that noise is only one of the many ways that determinism could be false. Compatibilism is true beyond all doubt, but determinism is based heavily on intuition and science has denied many intuitions in its history, so even in our apparently orderly universe there could be important ways in which things don't have to obey laws.
drachefly wrote:The convergence was referring to the parts of the world that Fate didn't care about. They could be anything, as far as Fate was concerned - as long as they didn't contradict what Fate did care about.
Maybe "convergence" means something different for you than it does for me because I can't understand what you mean. In the two wildly different paths that Wanda could have chosen, I see no convergence at all, and there is especially
no convergence in the parts that Fate didn't care about.
Denar wrote:Active Fate, and Marie agrees with Wanda.
"Fate will borrow Numbers from somewhere" is pretty unambiguously active, but is that really how Fate works? I can't help but notice that it's Wanda who says it and she is notoriously weak at the workings of Fate. On top of that, the rest of the episode makes me doubt that even Wanda really believes in Active Fate.
If Wanda believed in Active Fate then why did she even bother with Marie's help? Wanda should just have taken the shot immediately, maybe while screaming "Fate is my copilot!" The shot was only going to get harder to make with every delay, and Active Fate wouldn't have let the shot miss if it were necessary to hit. Marie's help would be entirely redundant.
Let's make the risky assumption that Wanda knew what she was talking about. Marie made no technical protests to Wanda's description of how Fate works in this case, so maybe Fate really did borrow Numbers, but even that doesn't actually imply the existence of a Fate-monster actively interfering in events, because this time we had a Predictamancer
actively interfering in events using Fate magic. Maybe it was Marie's juice that did the actual borrowing of Numbers as she carefully arranged the shot when the Numbers were just right. Apparently Wanda didn't think Marie was unnecessary, either.
Aside from the borrowing of Numbers, everything said about Fate in that episode is completely irrelevant to the issue of Active or Passive Fate. There's no reason why Passive Fate couldn't have plans and desires.
Denar wrote:Banhammer clearly agrees that determinism makes everything a hollow endeavour. He wants to be free, not a mechanism that blindly believes it is free.
Banhammer clearly doesn't understand compatibilism. Unfortunately it seems that Banhammer desires far more wisdom than he has, especially in his dealings with Olive.