Is libertarian free will coherent?

[Tassman]

What you are trying to refer to here is that one of the threads of the causal web in the agent has its beginning in the agent. But that in no way implies that it's the only thread in the agent. There are many, interacting threads in the agent. You think you've found some contradiction merely by pointing out the existence of the other threads.

Compatibilists hold that the agent is not able to do otherwise than he does. They define freedom in some other way. That's not me.

Wrong. As I said before, "I argued and concluded that a first cause must exist (See post 449 again). It's the conclusion, not the assumption. And if it implies that the universe has a beginning (which I'm not sure it does), then that would be a further conclusion, not an assumption."

that the universe began to exist.is sufficient. Science is coming to the view, e.g. multiverse theory, that the universe is eternal. Even the Big Bang argument allows for our current universe arising from the pre-existing eternal quantum vacuum.

If there were no such question, you would have had no reason to posit an infinite causal regress.

The question only arose in the context of your unevidenced assertion that one cannot have an infinite regress. This is not an issue when we have an eternal universe.

See the bolded part.

[seer]

The question only arose in the context of your unevidenced assertion that one cannot have an infinite regress. This is not an issue when we have an eternal universe.

Nonsense, first this universe is not past eternal as far as we know, it had a cause. And even within an eternal universe you would have an infinite regression of causes and effects.


All the evidence we have is that this universe began with a hot big bang. So either you have a first cause or an infinite regression of causes and effects. There is no other option.

[Joel]

Among the many causal threads in the agent, the threads that don't have their beginning in the agent are indeed not LFW decisions. Only those threads that have their beginning in the agent are LFW. And the overall outcome is the result of the combination of all the threads.
And again the advocates are not claiming total agent self-control. They are only saying that there is a non-zero amount of self-control.

I don't know enough to know whether Dennett's "willge-room" is the same thing I'm talking about.
But I don't think there are advocates of LFW who claim total agent self-control.

Wrong. As I said before, "I argued and concluded that a first cause must exist (See post 449 again). It's the conclusion, not the assumption. And if it implies that the universe has a beginning (which I'm not sure it does), then that would be a further conclusion, not an assumption."

that the universe began to exist.

That doesn't follow. In fact it's the opposite. I'm not even arguing that the universe is finite in past time, let alone assuming it.

is sufficient.

By definition, it's not.

The question only arose in the context of your unevidenced assertion that one cannot have an infinite regress. This is not an issue when we have an eternal universe.

No, as I've said before, I didn't argue that there cannot exist an infinite regress. I've only argued that it is insufficient--that it would require yet something else (i.e. something not contingent), to determine that it exists. My argument is not affected by whether the universe is eternal in duration.

(There may be good arguments that an infinite regress cannot exist, and/or that the universe is finite in past time. But I have not been presenting or using such arguments.)

[Tassman]

Nonsense, first this universe is not past eternal as far as we know, it had a cause. And even within an eternal universe you would have an infinite regression of causes and effects.



All the evidence we have is that this universe began with a hot big bang. So either you have a first cause or an infinite regression of causes and effects. There is no other option.

Science has moved on from there:

"the Big Bang singularity can be resolved by their new model in which the universe has no beginning and no end."

https://richarddawkins.net/2016/03/n...-no-beginning/

[Tassman]

Among the many causal threads in the agent, the threads that don't have their beginning in the agent are indeed not LFW decisions. Only those threads that have their beginning in the agent are LFW. And the overall outcome is the result of the combination of all the threads.

And again the advocates are not claiming total agent self-control. They are only saying that there is a non-zero amount of self-control.

This is 'compatibilism', not LFW.

I don't know enough to know whether Dennett's "willge-room" is the same thing I'm talking about.
But I don't think there are advocates of LFW who claim total agent self-control.

That doesn't follow. In fact it's the opposite. I'm not even arguing that the universe is finite in past time, let alone assuming it.

Your argument is purely philosophical, but philosophy alone cannot generate facts about nature. It can only reformulate the facts and ensure consistency within the existing models, theories and laws as obtained by science.

By definition, it's not

No, as I've said before, I didn't argue that there cannot exist an infinite regress. I've only argued that it is insufficient--that it would require yet something else (i.e. something not contingent), to determine that it exists. My argument is not affected by whether the universe is eternal in duration.

(There may be good arguments that an infinite regress cannot exist, and/or that the universe is finite in past time. But I have not been presenting or using such arguments.)

And that something is God. Thus spake St. Thomas Aquinas! But modern physics says otherwise.

[seer]

Science has moved on from there:

"the Big Bang singularity can be resolved by their new model in which the universe has no beginning and no end."

https://richarddawkins.net/2016/03/n...-no-beginning/

Nonsense, this all just speculation.

[Tassman]

Nonsense, this all just speculation.

http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-qua...-universe.html

[seer]

http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-qua...-universe.html

Big bang cosmology has a lot of physical evidence, this new model is no more than speculation at this point and if you read your link, this new model relies on the existence of gravitons - which to date, we have not been able to detect.

[Joel]

Here you are only complaining about the idea of 'first cause'. I've argued that every thread has to have a beginning somewhere. And if so, there seems to be no reason one cannot be in the agent.

And again the advocates are not claiming total agent self-control. They are only saying that there is a non-zero amount of self-control.

So you are basically saying there are no advocates of LFW. At any rate, you seem to be admitting that you aren't arguing against my position.

By definition, it's not.

Science says it most probably is

No it doesn't. And if it did, 'science' would be entailing a logical contradiction.

No, as I've said before, I didn't argue that there cannot exist an infinite regress. I've only argued that it is insufficient--that it would require yet something else (i.e. something not contingent), to determine that it exists. My argument is not affected by whether the universe is eternal in duration.

And that something is God. Thus spake St. Thomas Aquinas! But modern physics says otherwise.

That's not a counter-argument. You've done nothing to show the sufficiency of infinite regress.

[Tassman]

Big bang cosmology has a lot of physical evidence,

Big Bang theory presents (as yet unsolved) problems re the singularity, which will be resolved by the new model if validated.

this new model is no more than speculation at this point and if you read your link, this new model relies on the existence of gravitons - which to date, we have not been able to detect.

The graviton is a predicted elementary particle that mediates the force of gravitation in much the same way that the Higgs boson, (which gives mass to other particles), was predicted to be a necessary elementary particle. The Higgs boson was first suspected to exist in the 1960's and was validated in 2013. The probability is that gravitons will also be validated in due course. This is how science works.

[Tassman]

Here you are only complaining about the idea of 'first cause'. I've argued that every thread has to have a beginning somewhere. And if so, there seems to be no reason one cannot be in the agent.

So you are basically saying there are no advocates of LFW. At any rate, you seem to be admitting that you aren't arguing against my position.

Not many! "A recent 2009 survey shows that belief in libertarianism amounted to 13.7%."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_w...g_philosophers

No it doesn't. And if it did, 'science' would be entailing a logical contradiction.

Science is based upon verified empirical facts (as opposed to philosophy), and current scientific thinking predicts that the universe has no beginning and, therefore, no "first cause".

That's not a counter-argument. You've done nothing to show the sufficiency of infinite regress.

Again, current scientific thinking predicts that the universe has no beginning, regardless of what your philosophical argument has to say. Philosophy is a useful tool but any tool can be misused...and in the pre-scientific era it was misused repeatedly. Remember that nearly every argument and conclusion Aristotle made about physical science turned out to be wrong.

[seer]

Big Bang theory presents (as yet unsolved) problems re the singularity, which will be resolved by the new model if validated.

Correct Tass - if validated, until then it is just another unproven theory.

[Joel]

Here you are only complaining about the idea of 'first cause'. I've argued that every thread has to have a beginning somewhere. And if so, there seems to be no reason one cannot be in the agent.

Again, I agree that many causal threads in the agent had their beginning outside the agent. Indeed, the original coming into existence of the human agent had to consist entirely of threads that had their beginning prior to the agent (because the human agent's existence cannot be self-caused, nor is the human a necessary being). But that doesn't prove that there cannot be at least one thread in the agent that had its beginning inside the agent.

And yet you haven't bothered to point out any flaw in my argument.

Science is based upon verified empirical facts (as opposed to philosophy), and current scientific thinking predicts that the universe has no beginning and, therefore, no "first cause".

Again, my argument does not say that there cannot be an infinite causal chain, but that an infinite chain would be insufficient to determine the state of affairs, and thus would require something additional (and non-contingent) to cause it. Therefore, even if an infinite past were a proven fact, it would do nothing to invalidate my argument.

[Tassman]

Correct Tass - if validated, until then it is just another unproven theory.

[Tassman]

Again, I agree that many causal threads in the agent had their beginning outside the agent. Indeed, the original coming into existence of the human agent had to consist entirely of threads that had their beginning prior to the agent (because the human agent's existence cannot be self-caused, nor is the human a necessary being). But that doesn't prove that there cannot be at least one thread in the agent that had its beginning inside the agent.

There goes your argument.

And yet you haven't bothered to point out any flaw in my argument.

Again, my argument does not say that there cannot be an infinite causal chain, but that an infinite chain would be insufficient to determine the state of affairs, and thus would require something additional (and non-contingent) to cause it. Therefore, even if an infinite past were a proven fact, it would do nothing to invalidate my argument.

Yes it would. An infinite universe requires no beginning or start-up mechanism.