Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that A player's decision is not as free under eternalism as it would be if the future were ontologically open.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Eternalism implies that the player's decision is ontologically determinate before it is made.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.It is true today what the player will decide tomorrow under eternalism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If the future is ontologically open, it is not yet ontologically determinate what the player's choice will be.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Under eternalism, the four-dimensional block universe fixes all events timelessly, leaving no causal power for deliberation to alter outcomes (cf. Pereboom's hard incompatibilism).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Genuine freedom requires that deliberation be causally efficacious in selecting among real alternatives, not merely epistemically uncertain about a fixed result.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If the player's choice is already ontologically settled in the block universe, deliberation is epiphenomenal, which Frankfurt's own conditions for moral responsibility presuppose it cannot be.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Storrs McCall's branching-universe model grounds freedom in the objective pruning of future branches, entailing that ontological openness is a necessary condition for genuine alternative possibilities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Van Inwagen's consequence argument shows that if the future is as fixed as the past, the player cannot do otherwise, violating the Principle of Alternative Possibilities central to libertarian freedom.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.