the SEP article on compatibilism OPENS BY TALKING ABOUT HOW IT'S MAKING PROPOSITIONS ABOUT A PROPERTY IT CAN'T COHERENTLY DEFINE and segues into how really we're trying to make moral responsibility i.e. authority to punish compatible with determinism
-
-
what, the "if people have this property we're not going to define, then necessarily fundamental particles have it, and now everybody is going to use this to baselessly assert that Real Smart Scientists proved free will exists" theorem? i mean, the question is what it should do
-
I don't need to prove that it exists, only that your contempt and begging off the question is on shaky ground. You're smarter than this.
-
begging off what question? the Free Will Theorem and Strong Free Will Theorem literally demonstrate nothing about free will other than that if it existed, it would be a property of particles, with Conway then demonstrating free will's existence by handwaving
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.