Yet I do not argue that free agency is a form of random event causation. Just because the outcome to an event is not determined does not mean it is random event causation. Your ‘restatement of my argument’ is not actually a restatement of my argument, because the conclusion is not one I have ever argued for. As far as I can tell, it doesn’t follow from the premises I laid out. I suspect you have misinterpreted my position by making an assumption where I don’t.
The way I see it, “unknowable” means “that which cannot ever be known”.
Predictions are made, but not with metaphysical certainty required to categorize the decision event as “random” or “semi-random”.
When Hari Seldon used math to predict the future in the Foundation trilogy was he determining the behaviors of all who came after him or merely predicting what they would do?
What if his calculations were 100% accurate? Did Seldon force people to act without free will? Does the act of 100% accurate prediction force behavior? A little like Schrödinger’s Cat?
IOW, just because you know without a doubt what I will have for lunch tomorrow doesn’t mean you “made” me choose what to eat.
If the prediction was made with absolute certainty the outcome must have been forced. I mean metaphysical certainty, it has to be objective truth - not just some subjective sense of certainty.
If I have absolute certainty that you will have a ham sandwich for lunch tomorrow, then you are powerless to avoid that fate. Whatever gave me certainty in my prediction is actually forcing you to meet it.
“Outcomes, groups of outcomes, and groups of events are events in their own right.”
Causation:
“[A]n event producing an outcome.”
Random event causation:
“[W]hereby physical laws allow for multiple valid yet mutually exclusive outcomes to some event, and where even with perfect physical knowledge the outcome may be most accurately predicted by assigning equal probabilities to each physically possible outcome”.
Well admitting it is at least a step.
You take the position of libertarian free will because it’s a conclusion that you like. That’s all.
You don’t care whether it has any evidence supporting it, or any explanatory power, or even whether the model has been fleshed out whatsoever.
Right. I choose to believe in libertarian free will for moral reasons, but those are off-topic.
I care a little bit about fleshing it out - enough to write this topic. I’m interested in whether my personal philosophy withstands logical scrutiny. Have I contradicted myself?
