Hence the argument from causalnecessity to the abandonment of FM overgeneralizes: it refutes only a naive categorical FM, not the dispositional or Bohmian variants Valentini and Dürr defend.
?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.
Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.
A basic version of free will that treats choices as completely separate from physical causes; the 'naive' part means it's an oversimplified view that doesn't account for modern physics.
Valentini and Dürr(as used in contemporary philosophy of free will)
Philosophers/physicists who have developed and defended versions of free will that work with Bohmian and dispositional approaches to physics.
Variants(as used in logic)
Different versions or forms of something—in this case, different ways the sorites argument can be structured.
causal necessity(Hume's account in EHU 7.2.28–29; 8.1.5)
The constant conjunction of similar objects together with a customary inference of the mind from one to the other; the feeling of necessary connection is a product of the imagination, not an objective force in the world.
overgeneralizes(in logic and argumentation)
When you take something true about one specific situation or group and incorrectly assume it's true about a much larger situation or group.