I don’t think you properly read my objection, because no, in my version there are still infinite steps, just a finite number before 2.
It’s an illustration that “Every on is followed by off, and vice versa” is not actually what creates the problem, it’s the infinite steps before 2.
There is no reason that free will needs to be an infinite regress – that would just add one more problem to the concept. Because one could explain where the “will” comes from hypothetically in one step.
So what this comes down to is that if we posit one extra problem regarding the concept of free will, and if the universe can deal with infinite regress, then that particular problem has been solved.
I think this level of argument says all we need to about how defensible the free will concept actually is.
Right, so it’s a philosophical claim, and we’re back to square one. We have no reason in the first place to posit the existence of this thing. Prior to neuroscience maybe the notion of decisions being causally disconnected made a kind of intuitive sense – that’s the beginning, middle and end of the evidence for the concept.
Please elaborate.