The trick with computational irreducibility is that the single future path does NOT exist. Only by actually performing our choices is the path into the future determined.
Some may argue that the single path into the future does exist in theory, if reality is a deterministic process (where even randomness is deterministic according to theorem 1). I claim that the future consists of countless of possible paths and it's only when the 'computation' of reality is made in the moment that one of those paths becomes realized. The future is unknown in the strict sense, which means that no single path into the future exists.
What are the actual conceptual differences between computational irreducibility and
Chaos Theory?
Choice is an abstract concept, and even in a non-deterministic (ie, partially random) universe, it does not exist when the universe is considered from a purely physical perspective.
It very much is an abstract concept, which, alone, relegates this to a purely conceptual level. As for 'does not exist, even in a non-deterministic universe,' I disagree. 'Does not necessarily exist' would be more correct, I think. There are several more conditions that would need to be the case before a reasonable argument could even be made that choice exists under said conditions, and almost certainly nothing that could, from our perspective, give evidence for what is 'the ultimate truth of the matter.'
As I pointed out, to our perspective, there's no way that we could tell the difference between "actual Free Will" and "the illusion of Free Will." To do so would require abilities and knowledge that we just don't have and are very much unlikely to have.
You don't seem to have understood what I meant, maybe I put it badly.
If by badly, you mean that you left it a bit too open to interpretation with your wording, yes.
The best way to put may be to view the mind from an abstract
black-box perspective. Since it's
practically impossible for us to know
exactly what's going on inside a mind, we're forced to treat it as a black-box in normal circumstances anyway. You can interact with the person, but the specifics of the internal processes are unknown.
Yes, interacting with other people and things can affect the mind, cause the
states of the processes in the mind to change in some manner. But the processes themselves aren't being controlled or tampered with (which would normally require opening up the "
black box" and directly altering the mind/brain), and so free-will is maintained.
As could be seen from the edit that you're quoting, we're using two different concepts and calling those concepts Free Will. I'm using whether "actual choice" exists in the first place, as opposed to the illusion of it, as a guide. You appear to be using, in short, "no coercion is present, therefore, Free Will." While I see benefits from your usage of it, as noted previously, we're dealing with different concepts.
As for the matter of choice, the black-box point of view also works.
The output of the black-box (mind) represents a choice. Sure, if you looked inside the black-box and figured out exactly how it works, there would only be one possible output at any given time.
But if you don't know what's going on inside a mind, if it's to all intents and purposes a black-box, then there are a vast number of outputs/actions possible, depending on the exact nature/state of the internal processes at any given time.
The concept of "choice" represents exactly which possible output/action is produced out of all possible outputs/actions that could have been produced depending on the possible specific internal states and processes at the time.
I hope this makes sense. I'm rambling on a bit, it's getting late and I haven't had much sleep lately, so this post may not be completely coherent.
Basically, what you seem to be saying is that you are a determinist, but, like me, you recognize that there's no way to use determinism effectively without sufficient information, therefore, we must deal with reality as if we had Free Will (ETA: My definition), regardless of whether it is the case or not. Given this, but not necessarily dependent on it, you have adopted a version of "Free Will" that is somewhat more practical and useful for dealing with more direct situations, rather than abstract concepts.
