uncaused events

Originally posted by apathist
That's [b]not the definition for determinism.
.[/b]

Then PROVE it by referencing with a web link a generally accepted valid definition of it that contradicts my definition.

It is an implication ...

No, its a definition.

Exact initial conditions can't be recreated,

And nobody here CLAMS it can; which has nothing to do with the definition or meaning of it.
Using the same 'logic', the exact initial conditions that created a baby can't be recreated, so your definition of "baby" is invalid?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yet above, you falsely quoted me saying: "determinism rendered false all things measurable".
YOU misquoted ME, then had the nerve to suggest that I misquoted YOU.

[b]Indeed, it was a strange misconstruction of my comment.
No, it wasn't. Your understanding of English is at fault. The word 'anything' in my sentence does not mean what you think it m ...[text shortened]... e, and claiming you were quoted out of context, to try and place the blame for your error on me.[/b]

Anything refers literally to any thing. My comment was specifically about free will, not anything. If 'anything' in that sentence was meant to refer to 'free will' instead of anything you should have said that.

If you noticed, I already retracted the comment you continue to harp on. The original context, which has been lost in the flood, was regarding the impracticality of determinism as a scientific term. It was admittedly imprecise, in that I was referring to the forms of the vague term "determinism" which do claim that free will does not exist. It seems that both schools of thought exist, but I wasn't specific enough and neither was your reply.

Determinism can be compatible or incompatible. It is fatalistic, theological, logical, many-worlds, causal, naturalist, or necessitarianist. It can seemingly be, ironically, almost anything except indeterminism, which is equally fraught with confusing schools like hard, soft, libertarian, physicalist, or anomalous monism. Most importantly, deterministic or indeterministic models to explain physical systems under investigation are empirically indistinguishable. Its many many definitions are amebous, vague and extremely subjective.

Contrast that with free will, which according you is vague pseudoscientific nonsense, even though neuroscientists are busily studying mechanisms of action.

Originally posted by humy
Then PROVE it by referencing with a web link a generally accepted valid definition of it that contradicts my definition.

It is an implication ...

No, its a definition.

Exact initial conditions can't be recreated,

And nobody here CLAMS it can; which has nothing to do with the definition or meaning of it.
Using the same 'logi ...[text shortened]... tial conditions that created a baby can't be recreated, so your definition of "baby" is invalid?

That's not the same logic. The replication of the exact same initial conditions before the exact same outcome is a nonsensical definition of a baby. Unless you're saying that determinism is nonsense. In that case I agree.

Originally posted by wildgrass
Anything refers literally to any thing. My comment was specifically about free will, not anything. If 'anything' in that sentence was meant to refer to 'free will' instead of anything you should have said that.

Just admit you misread my sentence and made a fool of yourself by then misquoting me.

I fully accept that 'anything' in my sentence has ambiguous meaning, but given the context it should have been clear to you what was being said. But if you accuse someone of misquoting you, then have the good sense not to misquote while making the accusation.

Determinism can be compatible or incompatible.
Err, no. You are confused. Determinism is about whether or not the universe is deterministic.
Compatibalism, is about how to define free will.

Contrast that with free will, which according you is vague pseudoscientific nonsense, even though neuroscientists are busily studying mechanisms of action.
I am fairly sure I have never ever called 'free will' 'vague pseudoscientific nonsense'. So you are again, misquoting me.
What I would readily call 'vague nonsense' is some definitions of free will, though I would not honour them with the term pseudoscientific. And once again, what you call 'free will' is apparently very confused as you keep changing your mind about what you mean by it, and yet also are trying to claim that your definition is the same as mentioned in various scientific studies - something you have failed to demonstrate.
I do not dispute that neuroscientists are busily studying mechanisms of action. But whether such actions should be called 'free will' is a matter of definition. Under a compatibalist definition, it would be called 'free will', but several statements you have made earlier in the thread suggest you may not be a compatibalist. But mostly you just seem very confused.
Overall, your argument, which seems to be "'free will' was mentioned in a scientific paper therefore anything I say about free will is 'scientific'", is simply illogical.

Originally posted by wildgrass
The replication of the exact same initial conditions before the exact same outcome is a nonsensical definition of a baby..

So why isn't your apparently totally confused meaning you apparently give to the word 'determinism' nonsense for exactly the same reason?
For some mysterious reason you have yet to tell me, you think its meaning has something to do with being able to recreate the exact same initial conditions before the outcome, which in actuality has nothing whatsoever to do with its standard generally accepted meaning. So you are clearly extremely confused about this simple easy to understand concept and I have no idea why. Determinism has nothing to do with being able to recreate something, it means all outcomes are determined.

Originally posted by wildgrass
Determinism can be compatible or incompatible.

what does that mean?
"compatible or incompatible" with what?

Originally posted by humy
Then PROVE it by referencing with a web link a generally accepted valid definition of it that contradicts my definition.

Are you playing games? As I said, your offered definition is not accurate, but does reflect an implication of the actual definition. I never said your offered definition created a contradiction!

If you would actually desire to know what 'determinism' means, please open a dictionary.

Btw exact same conditions cannot occur, so toss that away. I say that to you, and to the libertarian free-willers. You inhibit discussion., as they do.

Originally posted by humy
what does that mean?
"compatible or incompatible" with what?

What is your best guess? You are playing games.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism

Determinism often is taken to mean causal determinism, which in physics is known as cause-and-effect. It is the concept that events within a given paradigm are bound by causality in such a way that any state (of an object or event) is completely determined by prior states.

That was buggered hard to find. Once you toss the dice, the outcome could have been no other.

I think I smell fear.

Originally posted by apathist
. I never said your offered definition created a contradiction!
.

right, not a self-contradiction. I didn't say you said this. I said

" Then PROVE it by referencing with a web link a generally accepted valid definition of it that contradicts my definition. "

You have yet to do this thus yet to prove my definition invalid.

Originally posted by apathist
What is your best guess?

sorry, I don't play guessing games. SPEAK PLAIN ENGLISH, not gibberish.

Originally posted by apathist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism
...

If you are saying you FINALLY now understand it; Well done; you apparently FINALLY understood this extremely simple easy to understand concept most people, let alone us scientists, understood easily and understanding it in less than the first 10 seconds of first reading it or first hearing anyone explaining it.
You don't have to tell us why you took considerably longer; we already know.

....Oh, wait, you haven't understood it because you still think my definition isn't equivalent to theirs.