[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Ian

Let's take compatibilism first. It claims that determinism and free will are not mutually exclusive. But this of course depends on what you mean by "determinism". If you mean that physical reality is governed by physical laws, or that all change in the world is brought about by the innate power of physical processes, then of course it is abundantly clear that free will is not compatible with determinism.

What is this free will of which you speak that is not compatible with determinism? You're still using the word in a particular way without defining it. You have an unstated definition in mind. I can certainly define a sort of free will that is compatible with determinism. In fact, I can define a whole family of free wills, depending on the field of inquiry. For example, the psychologist needs one definition while the law requires another.

If by "determinism" you mean that physical laws merely describe physical processes, and that causality is merely a conjunction of events like Hume argued, then free will is compatible with determinism.

I have no idea what Hume was talking about.

Libertarian? To quote mszlazak who in turn is quoting some anonymous author. "Imagine two parallel universes, identical in every detail, and imagine a man in each universe, identical in their character and knowledge and desires and everything else, standing in totally identical circumstances. Now imagine that one of these men chooses to kill his wife, but the other man chooses not to".

This author is claiming that those who subscribe to libertarian free will must agree that it is possible for one man to kill his wife but the other wouldn't. In that case I do not subscribe to libertarian free will.

But then what do you subscribe to? Either it is somehow possible for the two men to take different actions, or it is determined which action they will take. There is no logical room for anything else.

~~ Paul