No, we aren't. "We" have posted the fact that in addition to its several other conflicts with reason and evidence (the mutual and unavoidable incompleteness of the knower and the known, the necessity of abstraction and therefore incomplete knowledge, etc) perfect knowledge has been mathematically proven impossible in any universe described by mathematics.
The latter has not been proven, especially not by you, rather it has merely been asserted.
We await your proof that perfect knowledge is impossible.
Thus we actually are disputing what has been said.
If you aren’t disputing it, then you are not part of the “we” being referenced, clearly.
Or do you think you and I are the only people on this forum?
So I’m not sure why you put the “we” in quotation marks, as there is more than just me disputing your claim.
A causally deterministic universe as stipulated here is one such universe. That is not in dispute, except among those who reject the legitimacy or relevance of mathematical proof - and that kind of objection has not appeared here.
What remains in dispute is your claim that perfect knowledge is impossible.
You have certainly stated it, but your “proof” is no such thing, as already explained to you.
You keep bringing that up. Why? Indeterminacy plays no part in this discussion.
Because, whether you bother reading other people’s posts or not, not everyone yet understands this, and they need reminding.
Because Quantum Quack was suggesting that we are discussing reality, and reality is not a deterministic universe.
Hence the reminder to him that we are not discussing anything indeterministic.
Understand?
The topic remaining is the existence, nature, and role, of nonsupernatural freedom in a nonsupernatural, deterministic, natural law bound, observable, existent, universe. The supernatural is irrelevant - all of it, from "definition" to description.
No, the topic is whether freewill is possible in a deterministic universe.
Here’s a hint: look at the thread title.
You, however, want to simply dismiss any answer that says “no”.
Why?
Because if the answer is “no” then that notion of freewill must, according to you, be supernatural, and we have excluded the supernatural from discussion.
You’re a joke.
A thread that is titled to promote the discussion between the compatibilist and incompatibilist, and you, with a single stroke, want to dismiss the incompatibilist position.
Set up your own thread if you only want to discuss the compatibilist position, and take your obsession with “supernatural” with you.
Several suggestions have been made regarding approach, etc - that the example of a driver approaching a traffic light illustrates some basic issues and provides a useful introductory focus on some basic facts (humans choose from among their capabilities and act on those choices, in this universe, for one), that an extrapolation to higher logical levels from the concept of degrees of freedom common in engineering and statistical descriptions of lower logical level events seems suggestively possible, that we already engage in that kind of intellectual approach when finessing various physical laws in applying them to higher logical level events (such as the 2nd Law extrapolation complexities we routinely employ to account for Darwinian evolution without violation of deterministic principles).
Sure, and it’s been explained to you each time that your example offers no genuine alternatives, and thus no actual freedom.
That it relies on comparison to counterfactual alternatives.
That it only offers a notion of freedom found in bricks and orbiting Teslas.
That you have nothing else other than an appeal to complexity.
But each time you come back, not with anything new but with exactly the same.
And attempt to dismiss the incompatibilist position as irrelevant to the discussion.
You have proven only that you have no interest in the actual discussion of this thread.
So please, go set up your own thread to discuss the notions of freedom that you think are compatible in a deterministic universe.
