PaulK writes:
Do you see why I say that your arguments are confused?
Yes. I've told you that this is very confusing if we are not careful of the context we're using and because of the different definitions of free will here. That's why I've been asking you to propose an example so we can see things more clearly.
However, I will use an example to clear up this confusion.
First, there are two different definitions of free will:
"General" definition: Free will is the ability to choose between available alternative futures.
"In Principle" definition: Free will is the ability to get what you want from the presented situation given no interference from any external being.
So when you said that you were explaining the distinction you meant that there wasn't one.
Originally, I meant that there is a distinction between the General definition of free will, and the In Principle definition.
Taking point A in Carl's life where he makes a decision, he does so using some portion of randomness. He has 3 choices and picks 1. Here, free will exists if we use the General definition or the In Principle one, it doesn't matter. Here, there is no difference.
Now, let's take the example of a string on the floor representing Carl's life as seen by an external being who can see the future but does not interfere in the universe (Odin).
Taking point A in Carl's life... and some later point B where Carl makes another decision. This time the decision has 5 alternatives and Odin can see the future and knows that after Carl makes that decision, Carl freely chooses #4. But, Carl is still at point A. Carl doesn't know any of this. But... there are no alternatives... Carl is going to choose #4 at point B. If Carl does not choose #4, then Odin can't really see the future. Here, the General definition of free will says there are no alternatives and therefore no free will. However, the In Principle definition still says Carl has free will. That's the difference.
Carl still makes the decision at point B, Carl still makes the decision at point B as freely as he makes the previous point A decision. No interference, and including some level of randomness.
If we do not have the possibility of acting contrary to prophecy even in principle then we do not have free will at all.
Depends on the context of how you're using the word "possibility" and which definition of "free will" you're using. You can't just use whatever you want at any time... of course you'll get confused.
I'll lay it out:
In the context that "possibility" is Carl's free will when viewed by his point A decision.... then it doesn't matter what definition of free will you use. They are both violated if some interference is preventing Carl from freely choosing any of the 3 alternatives.
But now let's talk about the context of "possibilities" for Carl's future point B decision. Carl is still at point A. However, Odin can see the future and knows (after Carl has made the decision in the future) that Carl will freely choose #4 from the 5 alternatives.
If we look at this from Carl's point A reference point, Carl is going to choose #4 (given no interference from Odin)... there are no other possibilities. Now it matters which definition of free will we're using. If you use the General definition, there is no free will because there are no alternatives. So, in this sense, whenever one has "no possibilities" they have no General free will.
But Carl will make his point B decision as freely and unrestricted as he made his point A decision (given that Odin never interferes at all in any way)... so where has his free will gone? And, if we use the In Principle definition of free will... we see that it still works just fine. And, in this sense, one can have "no possibilities" (in the context that Odin can see the future choice of Carl) and still have free will In Principle, since there is no interference or restrictions placed on Carl's choice.
If we do not have the possibility of acting contrary to prophecy even in principle then we do not have free will at all. Yet you said that that was "not the important part". But then you insist that you "very much care" about whether we do in fact have free will. There's the contradiction.
Here, when I was saying that "the possibility of acting contrary to prophecy" is not the important part... I was talking in the context that "possibility" is restricted on Carl's point B decision from the point of view of his point A decision. And, the important part I'm talking about is the In Principle defintion of free will.. which is also what I "very much care" about.
If the In Principle part of free will is gone, then the General defintion is also gone and there is no free will... everyone agrees on this.
However there are cases where the possibilities can be restricted (but not by Odin or anyone else... only restricted because Odin can see what Carl has freely decided in the future) and the In Principle defintion of free will is still valid. This is where we need to be careful of context and definitions. Or else the confusion you're talking about grows very quickly.
Please remember the context you're discussing in and which defintion of free will you're talking about. They are not interchangeable. I've tried to follow your flow of thoughts... but I've obviously guessed wrong on which context and definition you were attempting to talk about when I've tried to clarify your comments.
As you can see from this post, there is no confusion or reversal of position as long as you identify what the context is and which definition you're discussing.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
