The compatibilist concept of free will is practical.
Yep, no qualms there. it is definitely the pragmatic approach that works in the usual circumstances. The problem arise when you start exploring farther from the mainstream, where your intuition fails, like the Newcomb’s problem.
Perhaps I shoukd have bern clearer that complete determinism versus indeterminism is an open question in science . But then maybe you knew, because your you made a few references to indeterminism already.
And maybe you knew because the issue is crucial to the the correct interpration of QM , which is discussed interminably here.
There is no difference between determinism and chance in that sense,
You hint very briefly at the he idea that randomness doesn’t support libertarian FW, but that is an open question in philosophy. It has been given book-length treatments.
Scott Aaronson suggested the Knightian free bit option as a source of true unpredictability, which seems to be an inherent requirement for the libertarian free will not based on magic
Which? Is indeterminism incapable of supporting FW as stated in the first quote , or capable as in the second?
But that is slightly beside the point, since our are arguing against counterfactuals, and the existence of counterfactuals follows tatologously from the absence of strict determinism, questions of free will aside
Yep, no qualms there. it is definitely the pragmatic approach that works in the usual circumstances. The problem arise when you start exploring farther from the mainstream, where your intuition fails, like the Newcomb’s problem.
I don’t really understand the rest of your point. The libertarian free will “our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God” is pure magical thinking not grounded in science. There is no difference between determinism and chance in that sense, neither is top-down causation. Scott Aaronson suggested the Knightian free bit option as a source of true unpredictability, which seems to be an inherent requirement for the libertarian free will not based on magic. Being in a simulation is an old standby, of course.
In what way?
Perhaps I shoukd have bern clearer that complete determinism versus indeterminism is an open question in science . But then maybe you knew, because your you made a few references to indeterminism already. And maybe you knew because the issue is crucial to the the correct interpration of QM , which is discussed interminably here.
You hint very briefly at the he idea that randomness doesn’t support libertarian FW, but that is an open question in philosophy. It has been given book-length treatments.
Which? Is indeterminism incapable of supporting FW as stated in the first quote , or capable as in the second?
But that is slightly beside the point, since our are arguing against counterfactuals, and the existence of counterfactuals follows tatologously from the absence of strict determinism, questions of free will aside