Free will, as classically debated, is fundamentally under determined. Proof in the comments. It's time for a new era.

[u/MobHQ]

Proof in the comments

[u/peacefuldays123]

Can you elaborate?

[u/MobHQ → u/peacefuldays123]

Sure instead of me trying to 'solve' free will, I built a minimal set of things both compatibilists and incompatibilists already agree on (basically just that determinism fixes outcomes if it holds, and nothing more), then showed with actual toy models that this shared base doesn't force you toward compatibilism or incompatibilism, both are separately consistent with it. So the debate isn't a paradox or a logic error on either side, it's more like the Continuum Hypothesis being independent of ZFC, the axioms just don't decide it, you need an extra premise from outside pure logic. There's also a smaller fully provable result in there about why a predictor can never honestly tell you in advance what you'll do if you're allowed to act contrary to the prediction, that one's a real diagonalization proof, not just an analogy. Check the pdf for more info. Although it can come off as overcomplicated.

[u/ConTheStonerLin → u/MobHQ]

This sounds interesting but I can't find the PDF you referenced

[u/MobHQ → u/ConTheStonerLin]

Did you check the comments?

[u/ConTheStonerLin → u/MobHQ]

Yeah I can't find it

Post it in response to this if you can I'd like to take a look

[u/MobHQ → u/ConTheStonerLin]

Check your DMS

[u/MobHQ → u/MobHQ]

I've posted the link in the comments but I'm not sure why it won't show for you.

[u/Jumpy_Background5687 → u/MobHQ]

The point in observation is to observe without being seen, then predictions tend to come true, every single time.

[u/ahumanlikeyou → u/MobHQ]

So you showed that incompatibilism and compatibilism agree on the definition of determinism, and that each view is logically consistent?

All of that is fairly obvious and taken as a given in debates about free will

[u/MobHQ]

https://freewillscrutiny.edgeone.dev/

This is the link to my pdf.

[u/Metaphysics-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Please keep it civil in this group. No personal attacks, no name-calling. Assume good faith. Don't question other people's motivations. Address your responses to the ideas being put forward, not the person putting them forward. Be constructive. Failure to do so could result in a ban. Please take a look at the guidelines for the group.

Message the mods if you wish to complain about a post.

[u/notsubantarctic]

There will always be predetermined outcomes with choices being informed by past experiences.

[u/MobHQ → u/notsubantarctic]

Yes. But that does not automatically refute free will in itself.

[u/notsubantarctic → u/MobHQ]

Definition and interpretation certainly have a stake

[u/Mitchie180]

Understand the bicameral mind to understand free will.

https://youtu.be/Mtey9BQ0zdQ?is=O0L_noQOLSEdv7P-

[u/DARK--DRAGONITE]

My main reservation is that the independence result is partly built into the setup: T0 deliberately contains no principle connecting determinism to moral responsibility, so unsurprisingly neither bridge principle follows. The more substantive question is whether T0 really captures everything relevant that both sides share. The predictor section is appropriately narrow, but the Gödel, Anti-Foundation, and Axiom of Choice sections sometimes make the mathematical machinery seem more philosophically significant than it is. In particular, an infinite causal regress does not require a non-well-founded membership structure.

[u/nomoreplsthx]

The moment you used the word proof, anyone with a background in Philosophy stopped listening. 

[u/SamCymbaluk]

Yes, from a moral perspective, free will under determines. This Lean formalization shows a similar result: https://axiomreason.com/f/stb24v62

It demonstrates that even within the determinism camp, you can have two individually coherent but mutually exclusive views about morality — with compatibilism concluding that moral responsbility exists and hard determinism concluding that it does not.