it can only be, yes, but that doesn't mean they mean the same thing. A square can only be a rectangle, but you can't just call things "squares" whenever you should be calling them a rectangle, and vice versa. The words still mean different things.

Yes, sure. But I didn't intend to say they are the same thing. To restate more explicitly: a (type of) indeterminist compatibilism.

But then again, given that compatibilism signifies a compatibility between free will and the necessity of determinants, what do you have in mind as a non-libertarian form of indeterminist compatibilism?

Mispost

someone who believes in libertarian free will believes the following 3 things

1. We have free will
2. Indeterminism is true
3. Indeterminism MUST be true for us to have free will

It's that third belief that's crucial there. You can be an indeterminist without believing 3. You could even be an indeterminist without believing 1.

Compatibilism, on the other hand, is more or less these 3 things

1. We have free will
2. Maybe we live in a deterministic universe, maybe there's some indeterminism (some compatibilists are unambiguous determinists, some are agnostic, and some are unambiguous indeterminists)
3. It doesn't matter if indeterminism is true or not for our free will

So an indeterminist compatibilism is just someone who believes we have free will, that we live in an indeterministic universe, but that if they happened to find out that we didn't live in an indeterministic universe, their understanding of free will would remain in tact.

So an indeterminist compatibilism is just someone who believes we have free will, that we live in an indeterministic universe, but that if they happened to find out that we didn't live in an indeterministic universe, their understanding of free will would remain in tact. — flannel jesus

How do you figure that when a non-indeterminstic universe can only equate to a deterministic universe, which in today's parlance can only equate to "everything is causally inevitable". What is "I could have chosen otherwise"- this being indeterminist free will (the many potential details and varieties aside) - in a universe where everything is causally inevitable?

How do you figure that — javra

Because that's what compatibilism means. Compatibilism in this context literally means, my concept of free will is compatible with determinism.

Because that's what compatibilism means. Compatibilism in this context literally means, my concept of free will is compatible with determinism. — flannel jesus

Yes, but you specifically specified - or attempted to - the definition of an indeterminsit compatibilist.

uh huh. And I stand by that. An indeterminist compatibilist is an indeterminist whose concept of free will is compatible with determinism.

This is a jumble of words without definition and can potentially be as meaningless as would be "the black rainbow is both white and purple"

So it would really help out if you could answer this question as pertains to what you're attempting to argue:

What is "I could have chosen otherwise"- this being indeterminist free will (the many potential details and varieties aside) - in a universe where everything is causally inevitable? — javra

every single word there has a clear prior context of meaning in this conversation, so I don't know why you think it's a jumble of words with no definition.

We know what it means for someone to be an indeterminist.

We know what it means for someone to be a compatibilist.

An indeterminist compatibilist is quite simply someone who is an indeterminist, and a compatibilist. Of course it is, why would it not be? A black horse is a creature that is a horse and is black. A rapping Asian is a person who is Asian and is rapping. An indeterminist compatibilist is an indeterminist who is a compatibilist.

I don't see which part you think is a jumble of words.

An indeterminist compatibilist is quite simply someone who is an indeterminist, and a compatibilist. Of course it is, why would it not be? A black horse is a creature that is a horse and is black. A rapping Asian is a person who is Asian and is rapping. An indeterminist compatibilist is an indeterminist who is a compatibilist.

I don't see which part you think is a jumble of words. — flannel jesus

You don't see that an indeterminist concept of free will is logically contrary to a determinst's concept of free will - even when either will claim their own versions of compatibilism. Given the span of this discussion on this topic, don't know what more to say then.

Maybe that is why you don't address this question via reasoning or examples. Again:

What is "I could have chosen otherwise"- this being indeterminist free will (the many potential details and varieties aside) - in a universe where everything is causally inevitable? — javra

I'll reply if you do address this question with some sort of explanation. Otherwise I won't. No biggie.

You don't see that an indeterminist concept of free will is logically contrary to a determinst's concept of free will — javra

My description of an indeterminist compatibilist didn't involve an indeterminist concept of free will.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Anyway, to complete the argument of the OP, an impossible thought experiment is set up, which itself is self-contradictory. In it, B1 and B2 have to perform the same action, but it is acknowledged that they do not. And that blows up that imaginary world. — tim wood

They HAVE TO perform the same action? I'm not sure we're reading the same article. Why do you say they have to? The author didn't say that.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

the article isn't about determinism

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

would you briefly paraphrase what you think the argument is in that article, and what the conclusion is? I'm really curious where you're at.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

the entire scenario with the 2 bobs is laid out assuming INDETERMINISM is the case. Not determinism. So that's why I didn't really understand why you're saying they have to do the same thing. If indeterminism is the case (and we're assuming it is, at that point in the article), then that enables Bob2 to do something different from Bob1.

Without going further into what I think of the rest of the argument, can you understand that at least? That the article takes indeterminism as an assumption, not determinism, and that therefore it's not the case that Bob2 has to do the same thing as Bob1.

There's a point in the article where he says this: "But the libertarian denies that Bob’s will is causally determined by anything". From that point on, for at least the next couple of paragraphs, and certainly while talking about the two bobs in the two worlds, he's talking about indeterminism.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Without some rigorous definitions, even if just tentative, nothing coherent can be stated or established — tim wood

You don't even have a tentative definition of indeterminism?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

what I believe about free will is way more difficult to express than the ideas in this article. And they don't matter in regards to a thread about the argument in this article, so I would prefer not to do that here.

I'll just briefly say that my belief in free will can be summarised by "emergent compatibilism". If you want to read about that sort of idea from someone much more intelligent then I, check this out. If you want to talk more with me about it, I'd request you start a new thread.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

The universe being indeterministic doesn't seem to give any more room for free will than if it were deterministic.

The universe being indeterministic doesn't seem to give any more room for free will than if it were deterministic. — flannel jesus

Especially in light of statements such as this, for the life of me i don't understand your reasoning. I'm presuming the best here, and am earnestly trying to understand. In then going back to this:

You don't see that an indeterminist concept of free will is logically contrary to a determinst's concept of free will — javra


My description of an indeterminist compatibilist didn't involve an indeterminist concept of free will. — flannel jesus

If your description of an indeterminist compatibilism does not involve an indeterminst concept of free will, what on earth kind of free will can your description of an "indeterminst compatibilism" possibly entail?

(I can so far only assume it then mandates a determinist concept of free will. But then how does one get a determinist concept of free will - i.e., a free will whose doings are causally inevitable in all conceivable cases - to in any way cohere with an indeterminist compatibilism???)

your description of an indeterminist compatibilism — javra

I didn't describe an indeterminist compatibilism. I described an indeterminist compatibilist - a person who is a compatibilist, who happens to be an indeterminist.

The two positions aren't related. It's just a person who holds both positions at once..

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Which cries out for defining all these terms. I have pointed out above that the article's mention of non-D was at least incomplete/inadequate and either thereby incoherent or itself already incoherent. — tim wood

Why? Why is mentioning a term that tim wood doesn't know the definition of incoherent? Is it incoherent any time anybody says a word you don't know? Determinism is defined on wikipedia, or Stanford philosophy encyclopedia. It's not a complicated definition either - well, maybe it is to some I guess, it seems pretty straight forward to me. You not knowing the definition of a word doesn't mean anybody who uses that word is being incoherent.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/