Standard definitions of compatibilism say something like:
I think this only shows that the standard definitions of (in)compatibilism are wrong. Instead of saying that determinism is incompatible with freedom, they should say that determinism is incompatible with beings like us having freedom.
- Compatibilism holds if and only if there is a world where there is determinism and at least one exercise of free will.
- Determinism holds at w if and only if for any time t in the history of w, and any world w* such that (a) the laws of w hold at w* and (b) w* exactly matches w at t, the worlds w and w* exactly match in the future of t.
I think this only shows that the standard definitions of (in)compatibilism are wrong. Instead of saying that determinism is incompatible with freedom, they should say that determinism is incompatible with beings like us having freedom.
Isn't the world's being deterministic sort of a red herring anyway? Suppose the entire world is deterministic, except that a single molecule in the Andromeda galaxy behaved very slightly indeterministically for 13 seconds in the year 1800. Surely that wouldn't affect whether we have the sort of freedom compatibilists want us to have? Or am I just missing something?
ReplyDelete