4.6 Article

Degrees of freedom

期刊

SYNTHESE
卷 198, 期 11, 页码 10207-10235

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11229-020-02714-z

关键词

Free will; Libertarianism; Physical theory; Auxiliary conditions; Principle of alternative possibilities; Nomological determinism; Statistical determinism; Indeterminism; Block universe; Phase space

资金

  1. Research Foundation Flan-ders (Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek, FWO) [G0B8616N]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper aims to address the tension between human freedom and nomological determinism, proposing four contributions to the free-will debate. These contributions include classifying scientific theories based on freedom allowed, emphasizing non-nomological indeterminism, combining elements from different theories for a libertarian reading, and proposing ways to strengthen the principle of alternative possibilities.
Human freedom is in tension with nomological determinism and with statistical determinism. The goal of this paper is to answer both challenges. Four contributions are made to the free-will debate. First, we propose a classification of scientific theories based on how much freedom they allow. We take into account that indeterminism comes in different degrees and that both the laws and the auxiliary conditions can place constraints. A scientific worldview pulls towards one end of this classification, while libertarianism pulls towards the other end of the spectrum. Second, inspired by Hoefer, we argue that an interval of auxiliary conditions corresponds to a region in phase space, and to a bundle of possible block universes. We thus make room for a form of non-nomological indeterminism. Third, we combine crucial elements from the works of Hoefer and List; we attempt to give a libertarian reading of this combination. On our proposal, throughout spacetime, there is a certain amount of freedom (equivalent to setting the initial, intermediate, or final conditions) that can be interpreted as the result of agential choices. Fourth, we focus on the principle of alternative possibilities throughout and propose three ways of strengthening it.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据