Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

3
  • That’s not really answering the point. I know Hard Determinists have a lot of alibis for putting their heads in the sand, but I’m saying the “if I can in principle predict what you’re going to do, then you’re not free” argument makes no sense. Having no other option is a different HD objection that this question isn’t targeted at. However, to that point I would say that I fundamentally disagree with the HD (or broadly clockwork) conception of causality, especially since it seems to require Platonism or substance dualism for laws of nature, while natural causes (Aristotle) don’t require that. Commented Oct 22, 2025 at 15:41
  • 2
    In other words, you don't find their arguments convincing. Personally, I simply don't find them relevant, but I don't see any way to prove it one way or the other. Pick one; we're probably all wrong. Commented Oct 23, 2025 at 14:10
  • 2
    "I am a rock - I am an island..." Commented Oct 23, 2025 at 22:49