Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Peter van Inwagen argues that in indeterministic contexts, no amount of prior physical information logically entails a specific future choice.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Van Inwagen conflates logical entailment with causal determination; indeterminism needn't prevent causation by prior physical facts.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If no physical information entails choices, choices seem causally disconnected from reasons, making deliberation and agency incoherent.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The argument proves too much: it would apply equally to determinism and indeterminism, failing to establish a distinctive libertarian claim.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Indeterminism means physical states don't determine future outcomes, so no physical facts alone can logically entail specific results.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If prior information logically entailed choices, agents would lack libertarian free will and moral responsibility would be undermined.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Logical entailment requires necessity; probabilistic determination is insufficient, and physics only provides probabilities in quantum contexts.
?
How convincing is this?
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.