That model seems quite useful to me, as it avoids the pitfalls of logical counterfactuals vs environmental counterfactuals, and a bunch of otherwise confusing dilemmas.
You are “solving” the problem by dogmatically siding with clockwork determinism against free will. That isn’t a real solution because someone else could be dogmatic in the other direction, and it is also inconsistent with your anti realism.
Just a general comment on your style: I have stopped replying to you because you tend to talk at me, telling me what’s right and what’s wrong, as if you have the monopoly on truth. This may well not be your intention, but that’s how your comments come across to me. Just thought I’d let you know. Of course, for all I know, others perceive my comments the same way and that’s why they don’t reply to me.
Saying that some things are right and others wrong is pretty standard round here. I don’t think I’m breaking any rules. And I don’t think you avoid making plonking statements yourself.
You are “solving” the problem by dogmatically siding with clockwork determinism against free will. That isn’t a real solution because someone else could be dogmatic in the other direction, and it is also inconsistent with your anti realism.
Just a general comment on your style: I have stopped replying to you because you tend to talk at me, telling me what’s right and what’s wrong, as if you have the monopoly on truth. This may well not be your intention, but that’s how your comments come across to me. Just thought I’d let you know. Of course, for all I know, others perceive my comments the same way and that’s why they don’t reply to me.
Saying that some things are right and others wrong is pretty standard round here. I don’t think I’m breaking any rules. And I don’t think you avoid making plonking statements yourself.