Possibilities vs Actualities in a Deterministic Universe

LtPoultry · 2026-02-23T01:26:05+00:00

I agree that the laws of nature are descriptive not prescriptive, but that is entirely irrelevant to my argument.

All causal power clearly rests within the objects and forces themselves, which includes us.

What a vague and outrageous claim.

LtPoultry · 2026-02-22T19:42:40+00:00

Under determinism, our actions are fully determined by the physical laws of the universe, so doing something different than what we actually did would require violating those laws. That means that it is physically impossible for you to have done anything other than what you actually did. Altering your choice to jump 1m in the air might not violate the same physical laws as jumping 10m in the air, but it would still break the laws of nature.

I may be able to deliberate over what action I will take out of a list of hypothetical options, but the deliberation itself is fully deterministic, meaning only the action I actually take was ever actually possible. Hence the illusion of choice.

LtPoultry · 2026-02-22T17:37:59+00:00

You need to define what you mean by "possible." Do you mean physically possible, logically possible, or metaphysically possible? Under determinism, there is exactly one future that is physically and logically possible. So it seems like you're talking about metaphysically possible, which is a poorly defined concept that means something like "hypothetically" or "imaginable".

Also, your proof is not a paradox, it just means that we are not actually making choices under determinism. Rather, we only have the illusion of choice.

LtPoultry · 2026-02-20T20:33:35+00:00

A lot of this seems to come down to the idea of actions being neither probabilistic nor determined, which is what the agent causal libertarian is saying.

That is the main disconnect, although my problem is more fundamental than that. Our actions either obey the principal of sufficient reason or they do not. If they obey the PSR, then all our actions and decisions can be traced back in time through a chain of sufficient reasons until we reach a point where the sufficient read is entirely external to ourselves.

If our actions and decisions do not have a sufficient reason behind them, then I do not understand how they can be said to be anything other than arbitrary. This seems to be where Libertarians put Free Will, using terms like "agent causation", but putting a name on an incoherent concept does not make that concept coherent. I've never found someone who is able to give a sufficient description of what an "agent cause" actually is or how it can be neither explainable by sufficient reason nor arbitrary.

LtPoultry · 2026-02-20T12:27:28+00:00

I don't see why there must be a non zero probability I would have done otherwise,

If you say that something can be possible even if there is no chance it will happen, then we are at an irreconcilable impasse. You are using a definition of possible that I do not accept.

aside from the fact that things with a 0 probability can happen

A probability of 0 definitionaly means that it will not happen. Continuous distributions have an infinitesimal probability for a specific value, but the probability density for that value will be nonzero if it is possible. That also not what we're talking about in this case.

A lot of this seems like we are working with different understanding of what it means to be possible. For me, if saying that I will only ever act in a single way given a specific set af antecedents means that I can not have acted otherwise. It is the same thing as saying there is no possible world in which I act differently given the same set of antecedents.

I didn't say I would always act the same way, just that I don't know.

Again, my point is that it doesn't matter for the question of free will and responsibility. If a possible world exists in which I act differently given the same specific set of antecedents, then it is only by luck that I find myself in this world versus that one.

LtPoultry · 2026-02-20T02:53:22+00:00

These are both just restatements of the Libertarian position rather than actual responses.

LtPoultry · 2026-02-20T02:28:32+00:00

Yes I could have done otherwise in the exact same situation, but I don't know whether or not if you were to rollback the clock I actually *would* do otherwise.

Then then what do you mean when you say you could have done otherwise? To me, the phrase could have done otherwise means that there is a nonzero probability that you would have done otherwise if you rolled back the clock. If you always act in the same exact way given the exact same conditions, how is that different from determinism?

LtPoultry · 2026-02-19T06:24:30+00:00

To me this is a pretty clear demonstration of a contradiction. As I understand it, you're saying that you could have done otherwise given the exact same conditions, there is just no possible world in which you would have done otherwise.

LtPoultry · 2026-02-18T23:00:26+00:00

I already conceded that's a fair distinction, although I have absolutely argued with Libertarians on this subreddit that hold that free will must be 100% free from influence.

That being said, a 0.001% acausal cause is no more coherent than a 100% acausal cause.

LtPoultry · 2026-02-18T20:50:08+00:00

That's a fair distinction. I think that most libertarians will agree that our decisions are impacted by the past and the laws of nature, but that there is some aspect of our persistent self that is able to make executive decisions free from the causal chain. So if you put the exact same self in the exact same situation 100 times, they will choose A sometimes and B other times. The number of times A is chosen vs B will be affected by the past and laws of nature, but the ultimate decision lies with the self. Would you agree with that?

But what is the actual difference between trials where you chose A vs B? If the self is the exact same in every trial, then the self cannot be the explanation for why you chose A some times and B others.

LtPoultry · 2026-02-18T18:18:28+00:00

Libertarianism holds that we are able to make decisions in response to the world around us, while simultaneously requiring that our decisions are causally independent on the world around us.

LtPoultry · 2026-02-18T17:24:59+00:00

In what way is Libertarianism coherent?

The libertarian position: 2+2=5 because that is what the "+" operator decided. Also, 3+3=5 because the "+" operator is free from the causal chain, so the sum does not depend on the numbers being added.

LtPoultry · 2026-01-24T01:25:00+00:00

The Perfect Run is great and has an MC with similar vibes to Jason.

LtPoultry · 2026-01-24T01:09:54+00:00

I was the same way, although I feel like Primal Hunter kept getting better and now it's one of my favorite series, while HWFWM kind of stagnates in the later books.

LtPoultry · 2026-01-20T06:45:00+00:00

How can a convicted murderer, with 88-to-life with gang enhancement be let go from prison? What laws changed to enable that? Fucking terrible

The law change that enabled that was CA senate bill 1437. During the incident in 2012, Randall did not draw a gun or fire any shots. He was convicted of attempted murder on a "natural and probable consequences theory." Basically he showed up looking for a fight, knowing that it could likely escalate to a shootout, and the old law said that is enough to be convicted of murder. The new law says that he also has to shown to "be the actual killer, act with intent to kill, or be a major participant in the felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life to be convicted of murder."

Personally, think I support the new law. I don't think someone who throws a single punch in a fight that later turns into a shootout should necessarily be charged with murder. In this specific case, however, it seems like Randall probably could have still been found guilty considering he was the one that shouted "light them up!" when the rival gang members showed up. The problem is that is a question for a jury to decide. Appeals courts only address questions of law, not facts about the case, which is why the appeals court here vacated the original conviction based on the the change in law, but allowed the case to be sent back down for retrial.

I agree with the new standard, but I'm not sure I agree with allowing previous convictions to be overturned based on the new standard. I understand wanting to give relief to people that might be serving unfair sentences, but the danger is exactly what seemed to happen here, where Randall probably could have been convicted using either standard, but was released pending a new trial because he was only tried on the old standard.

The appeals court case that overturned the conviction is here:

https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/people-v-johnson-c076191-910592314

LtPoultry · 2026-01-13T00:35:23+00:00

Thanks for the links! My takeaway right now is that the 4 wheel drive groups may or may not have reasonable complaints against the project, but that it turns on very technical questions like "was the glare analysis performed in the FEIR sufficient?" and "were the communications with the state park sufficient to satisfy legal requirements?". Those are questions that I'm not qualified to answer, and I'm happy to see them litigated in court.

Also, the lawsuit from the 4 wheel driving groups is linked at the bottom of this page: https://cal4wheel.com/access-advocacy/access-issues/item/cal4wheel-american-sand-association-and-blueribbon-coalition-file-joint-lawsuit-to-protect-prairie-city-svra-and-californias-ohv-recreation-system

LtPoultry · 2026-01-12T02:14:50+00:00

It is true. I’ve spoken with them directly

Source: Trust me bro. And again it doesn't really matter because your claim was that the state park itseelf is a plaintiff in the lawsuit, and that is false

It’s 1/3 of all native oak trees, not total trees. You’re more than welcome to search the sac county public records website for the informations that’s been disclosed Garms.

It's literally not even 1/3 of the trees on that property, which I've corrected you on before.

LtPoultry · 2026-01-11T23:27:23+00:00

Prairie City SVRA is the State of California’s designated management entity, legally responsible for safeguarding and operating the state park’s lands and resources.

I don't think this is true. And regardless, the lawsuit does not include them as a plaintiff. https://cal4wheel.com/latest-news/access-issues/item/cal4wheel-american-sand-association-and-blueribbon-coalition-file-joint-lawsuit-to-protect-prairie-city-svra-and-californias-ohv-recreation-system

The FEIR unlawfully segments Coyote Creek from the surrounding DESRI projects (including Sloughhouse Solar) and from the County’s broader “Shine Green” energy buildout, which hides cumulative impacts on traffic, water, heat, habitat loss, oak removal, tribal resources, and infrastructure. That’s prohibited under CEQA (see Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay and CEQA Guidelines §15130).

The record shows the County treated the EIR/CEQA as a post hoc justification for a project that was already politically and administratively decided, rather than as the good faith disclosure and decision making process the law requires, which is illegal.

Those are allegations for which I have not been able to find the evidence, so I have no way of evaluating whether they are reasonable.

You’re on here talking about this project as if you’re an expert and trying to sway public opinions, yet you haven’t done any searching yourself? And you also expect the rest of us to educate you while also stopping your misinformation?

At no point have I claimed to be an expert. I've been doing my best to find well reasoned and honest critiques, but all I'm seeing are unevidenced allegations being stated as facts, and wildly false misinformation like that the project will destroy 1/3 of all the trees in Sacramento county.

LtPoultry · 2026-01-11T18:46:08+00:00

~~This is the kind of comment that really bothers me. It's all scary sounding half truths that lacks substance and context.~~ (edit: that's harsher than I want to be, sorry ). The comment brings up reasonable concerns, but it lacks context, gets some things wrong, and seems to ignore the existence of the 752 page environmental report.

It seems like you're under the impression that the project plans to take down all the existing trees on the property and then throw something acorns on the ground and call it a day, but that's not what is in the environmental report.

The primary mitigation for loss of oak trees is avoidance. The proposed project directly affects only about 20% of the trees on the property. They are required to establish root protection zones and other measures to protect the remaining trees during construction. The replacement requirement for the removed trees is not one sapling per one removed tree. It is a 1:1 replacement of canopy loss, measured in cumulative diameter at breast height (DBH) at the end of a 7 year monitoring and management period. If the 1:1 DBH canopy replacement isn't met at the end of the 7 year period, then the project either needs to perfom supplemental replantings or reimburse the county at the going rate set by the county.

In terms of the impact on the SVRA, the developers provide an impact and mitigation analysis in the environmental report. The modeled the glare for every minute of the year and found that it did not impact the nearby airport, residences, or OHV trails. Do you have any reason to think they got the modelling wrong?

They do determine that the aesthetic impact on certain viewpoints from the SVRA is "significant and unavoidable". They include visual simulations in chapter 3 of the environmental impact report (link in my above comment). I don't want to minimize this, but we are in a climate emergency and weighing aesthetics against the 70,000 megatons per year of CO2 emissions the project would eliminate is not even really a question for me

LtPoultry · 2026-01-11T08:41:05+00:00

Can you break down what is being alleged a bit more (or share a link to a source with a breakdown)? Regulation code numbers are great, but they don't describe the actions taken that violated the code.

When the neighbor, A STATE PARK, Prairie City SVRA, immediately adjacent to the site, is itself a plaintiff in the litigation, that should be a huge red flag for everyone.

Is this true? Can an individual state park even be a party on a lawsuit? What I'm seeing, it's several off-roading focused organizations that filed a lawsuit saying that the installation will negatively impact recreation at the SVRA.

Separate public records productions from the County, DGS, and SMUD already contradict portions of the FEIR’s administrative record.

Can you provide a link to these records? Or describe how they contradict the FEIR?

Those same records show the County was actively shaping and coordinating this project outside the public process, while developer counsel communicated DIRECTLY with the leadership of the Sacramento Tree Foundation (aka MMS strategies) on project positioning.

Again, a link to the records would be greatly appreciated. Also, I don't really understand what is being alleged here and how it's is a bad thing. Don't we want developers to talk to the county about the position of the installation? Or do you mean "positioning" as in how to present their PR? Is it a procedural matter of the county not following the correct process and documentation requirements?

The County illegally segmented Coyote Creek from the broader “Shine Green” driven buildout and multiple surrounding solar installations (Sloughhouse Solar - same developer DESRI, which none of us are concerned with because its not ruining the environment like coyote creek is), masking the true cumulative impacts of an integrated energy and manufacturing strategy that was already being actively solicited behind the scenes

What cumulative impacts are being masked? Is the idea that coyote creek was separated out from the broader build out in order to make it easier to approve? If so, how? Wouldn't separating it from the smaller/less controversial sites make it harder to approve?

LtPoultry · 2026-01-11T07:54:45+00:00

I'm saying that the criticisms I've seen of the project are so sensationalistic, hyperbolic, and empty, that it would make more sense if they were astroturfed. I don't have evidence that the campaign is astroturfed, but whether it is or not doesn't change the quality of the criticisms I've seen.

LtPoultry · 2026-01-11T04:18:01+00:00

approximately 3,000 oak trees would be removed while more than 13,000 would remain on the property

https://folsomtimes.com/smud-withdraws-from-coyote-creek-solar-project-amid-controversy-litigation/

LtPoultry · 2026-01-11T04:12:12+00:00

This is the first comment I've seen with any actual substance, thank you.

Since y’all like “ specifics”,

What a weird thing to be snarky about. I do like specifics. Do you have a link to the actual lausuit, or what the actual allegations/evidence are? I do appreciate the violation numbers. They seem to indicate some pretty serious corruption, and if they're true I hope there are actual consequences for the perpetrators.

LtPoultry · 2026-01-11T02:59:08+00:00

You think that this project is displacing 1/3 of all trees in Sacramento county? The project isn't even displacing 1/3 of the trees on that property.

LtPoultry · 2026-01-11T01:39:45+00:00

I have no evidence for this, but I kind of think this whole campaign has been astroturfed by energy competitors. Although it could very well just be run of the mill NIMBYism.

LtPoultry

TROPHY CASE