# Free Will with a Little Bit of Science! (TM)(C)(R) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 30, 2021, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will-with-a-little-bit-of-science-tm-c-r/931877 "2021-01-30T17:53:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 17
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2021, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will-with-a-little-bit-of-science-tm-c-r/931877/321 "2021-04-25T21:53:03Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Does not Determinism imply that the only things which could happen are the things which actually will happen? You said so yourself. Things that _could_ happen are things that are (or were) _physically possible_ - I don’t think that is a controversial assumption. The conclusion would be that the only things which are physically possible are those which actually happen. I apologize, the major premise should read, “things that are _physically possible_ are things that _could_ happen”. - All things that are _physically possible_ are things that _could_ happen - All things that _could_ happen are things that _do_ happen (determinism) - Therefore, all things that are _physically possible_ are things that _do_ happen ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2021, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will-with-a-little-bit-of-science-tm-c-r/931877/322 "2021-04-26T03:15:44Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > The second premise reads “assuming determinism he was physically incapable of saving the child”. If you can deny that premise, you can deny the absurd conclusion. So the sub-debate we’re having about physical capability is, in my opinion, all about proving or disproving this second premise. This is like talking to a brick wall. “Capability” necessarily implies a range of situations. If being capable of walking up stairs only meant that I did climb a particular staircase the word would be absolutely useless. You wouldn’t even be able to say a ball is capable of rolling. You’re using a word in a disingenuous way for rhetorical purposes. It’s a pretty low debating tactic. > [@Max\_S](#): > > Does not Determinism imply that the only things which could happen are the things which actually will happen? You said so yourself. Things that _could_ happen are things that are (or were) _physically possible_ - I don’t think that is a controversial assumption. Sure, but the former is a subset of the latter. Again, with my chess example; on move 7 I considered playing b5, Be4, Nf6…I have the “capability” of playing any of these moves and more. They were all physically possible. But, based on my understanding of chess at the time, Be4 seemed the best move to me, as pinning my opponent’s knight seemed the most important principle at this time, so that’s what I played. BTW, I asked already, and so have others, but I’ll ask again: how do you suppose this situation is different under your libertarian free will model? Don’t just say “could have chosen differently”, how or why would I choose differently? ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2021, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will-with-a-little-bit-of-science-tm-c-r/931877/323 "2021-04-26T06:15:30Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > If being capable of walking up stairs only meant that I did climb a particular staircase the word would be absolutely useless. You wouldn’t even be able to say a ball is capable of rolling. Indeed, I think the concepts of ‘capability’ and ‘responsibility’ are _necessarily_ useless after assuming Determinism. The whole point of my argument is to show the absurd consequences Determinism has on the justice system - these sentences I quoted do not hurt my position. > [@Mijin](#): > > > [@Max\_S](#): > > > > Things that _could_ happen are things that are (or were) _physically possible_ - I don’t think that is a controversial assumption. > > Sure, but the former is a subset of the latter. You are exploiting a mistake on my part, already addressed in post #321. It should have read “Things that are _physically possible_ are things that _could_ happen - I don’t think that is a controversial assumption”. Regardless, things that could happen are not a subset of things that are physically possible. Otherwise we would have things that are physically possible which could never happen. This sentence is self-contradictory, and so is your assertion: _You are capable of doing things that you can never do_. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2021, 8:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will-with-a-little-bit-of-science-tm-c-r/931877/324 "2021-04-26T08:38:34Z")
“Your attempt to redefine ‘capability’ is stupid” “Yes, I know Determinism is stupid” This is beyond infantile. I’m done with both threads. ---
**Author:** ![jcklpe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jcklpe/32/6602_2.png) [@jcklpe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jcklpe)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2021, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will-with-a-little-bit-of-science-tm-c-r/931877/325 "2021-04-27T01:28:47Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > I’m using your own definition, which we previously agreed to: > > > [@jcklpe](#): > > > > My understanding of culpability is basically the same as “responsibility” and in my mind **responsibility is based upon who is able to respond**. > > > > > If a man is drowning in a lake, then it’s not my fault he is drowning in a lake but I still feel that it is my responsibility to help him. > > ~Max Also you said: “That is why **jcklpe** attempted to argue that restorative justice is compatible with personal responsibility.” I don’t understand what about my stance means that restorative justice is is not compatible with personal responsibility. You are saying that it is my definition, but what about my definition implies a contradiction between those two? Also catching up to where the debate has progressed: Max do you think that determinism denies the existence of possibilities in the plural? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will-with-a-little-bit-of-science-tm-c-r/931877.md?page=16)