compatibilism is about the existence of free will in a deterministic world rather than a random world — MoK

Compatibilism is about conceiving of free will in such a way that it's compatible with determinism, which is distinct from an explicit claim that determinism is in fact the case.

We can just ignore that edge case. — flannel jesus

OK. Then, a compatibilist will necessarily believe in the reality of some form or other of free will. If so, to reinforce 's comment, how can free will be stated to be real if the act of deciding is of itself random?

how can free will be stated to be real if the act of deciding is of itself random — javra

Because the options aren't 100% determinism and 100% randomness. There's also the option of <some randomness>.

If quantum randomness is the case, then it's not like everything that happens in the world is completely random. Quantum events are governed by the Schrödinger equation, so even if the event isn't deterministic, the range of possibilities is deterministically decided, and it seems to be that the randomness that does exist in a quantum sense kind of averages out macroscopically.

So in such a view, it's not just a nonsense world where everything is random and nothing is causally connected to past states. There's still a sense of causality, with some random quantum wiggle room.

Compatibilism is about conceiving of free will in such a way that it's compatible with determinism — flannel jesus

Yes.

which is distinct from an explicit claim that determinism is in fact the case. — flannel jesus

Well, if you deny determinism then there is nothing to discuss when it comes to compatibilism.

Well, if you deny determinism then there is nothing to discuss when it comes to compatibilism. — MoK

I don't agree

I don't agree — flannel jesus

Why?

Because if I think incompatibilists understood free will incorrectly, because they understand it in such a way that it's incompatible with determinism, then it doesn't matter if I'm a determinist or not, it doesn't matter if the world is determinist or not. If they have the wrong concept of free will, then it's wrong, regardless of what I think about determinism or randomness separately.

You've explained options via randomness, but not the choice between options which is taken. How can randomness account for the very act of deciding while yet accounting for one's responsibility in light of the decision made? — javra

When you come to a fork in a raging river, if you don't make a conscious (responsible) choice, the river will make it for you. :cool:

Because the options aren't 100% determinism and 100% randomness. — flannel jesus

To my surprise, I fully agree with this statement as written. (You might recall that in the other thread I used the term "semi-determined" or something to the like, which signifies just this.) But I doubt we agree on what the statement entails.

So what to you is hybrid between determined and random? Or are all events either 100% determined or 100% random when you get down into nitty gritty?

i feel like what I said about quantum crap is a good example, no?

When you come to a fork in a raging river, if you don't make a conscious (responsible) choice, the river will make it for you. :cool: — Gnomon

The question was about that conscious choice, and not about whether rivers make decisions. But I guess you're not taking this seriously. Oh well.

i feel like what I said about quantum crap is a good example, no? — flannel jesus

No. First off because it addresses hypotheses regarding physics at a quantum level which have in no way been evidenced to directly influence, much less determine, the choices that we as conscious beings make. Secondly, this issue is one of sheer metaphysical possibilities rather than about physical data with nebulous explanations.

So, again, what to you would a hybrid between 1) a determined event and 2) a random event be?

I really don't understand why "quantum randomness" isn't a solid example of the question at the end of your post. That, to me, would be a hybrid.

Because if I think incompatibilists understood free will incorrectly, — flannel jesus

I think they got it right.

because they understand it in such a way that it's incompatible with determinism, then it doesn't matter if I'm a determinist or not, it doesn't matter if the world is determinist or not. — flannel jesus

Why bothering to discuss compatibilism if it does not matter that the world is deterministic or not?

If they have the wrong concept of free will, then it's wrong, regardless of what I think about determinism or randomness separately. — flannel jesus

Where do you think that they got the concept of free will wrong?

I really don't understand why "quantum randomness" isn't a solid example of the question at the end of your post. That, to me, would be a hybrid. — flannel jesus

I've already explained why. But (unless I need to give further replies) I'll stop.

your explanation doesn't make it not an example though. It feels like you're trying to bait out some specific answer you have in mind. I don't know what that is so I'm not guessing the thing you want me to say.

OK. Why not?

i feel like what I said about quantum crap is a good example, no? — flannel jesus

If you with quantum crap mean the Copenhagen interpretation then it suffers from many paradoxes such as Schrodinger's cat paradox and particle-wave duality. So this interpretation cannot be the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics.

nobody is suggesting it's correct. It's an idea. The idea is an idea which matches the concept of a hybrid of determinism and randomness.

you asked for a hybrid. Its a hybrid. It is a process which is in part deterministic and in part random.

Then why don't accept the De Broglie–Bohm interprertation which is paredox free and determinsitic?

you should make a thread about what interpretation you think is correct

Its a hybrid. It is a process which is in part deterministic and in part random. — flannel jesus

It might come as no surprise that others disagree with this. So how do you rationally conclude this affirmation?

Not that any of this addresses the reasons I've given. But all the same.

-----

Just saw this:

Then why don't accept the De Broglie–Bohm interprertation which is paredox free and determinsitic? — MoK

If it's deterministic, it ain't partly random. :wink: :razz:

others disagree with this — javra

I'm not talking about what is the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics. I'm not making an ontological claim that this is true about the world. I'm talking about a concept - regardless of if that concept matches reality. Conceptually, this way of interpreting quantum mechanics is a hybrid.

I actually explicitly DON'T think that interpretation is likely to be correct. But I'm not worried about that, I'm just worried about giving you a suitable example to the question you asked. I think it is, regardless of the fact that I don't think the world actually works that way

Are you asking me for an example that I think really genuinely exists in real life? Because I don't think that was specified in the way you asked your question.

I think it is the right thread to discuss this issue since you are using an interpretation of quantum mechanics for the sake of your argument which is unfortunately paradoxical.

I don't think it's paradoxical.

Conceptually, this way of interpreting quantum mechanics is a hybrid. — flannel jesus

OK. But how do you reason this hybrid metaphysics to work? This has direct baring on what you are wanting to claim for free will.

If it's deterministic, it ain't partly random. — javra

It is not at all random. Randomness only exists in other interpretations, Copenhagen interpretation for example.

:up: I agree. Maybe I should have been clearer.

I don't think it's paradoxical. — flannel jesus

It is. The cat in the box cannot be in both states of alive and dead.