In defence of free will: Difference between revisions

Line 21:

Now, by basic logic (the law of excluded middle) and syntax it is easy to see that "deterministic versus indeterministic" is a genuinely mutually exclusive dichotomy, however, a little insight leads to the conclusion that the dichotomy "necessitated versus random" is not. It has a gap in it - a gap into which a third option compatible with free will slots. Something has gone missing in translation.

That missing third option is "contingent". This covers those events for which we can say that although the event happened due to some cause, it did not "have to" happen because of that cause; it simply "did" happen because of that cause. (Note that, as this implies, "contingent" is being used here not in its sense as "subject to chance" but in its sense as "dependent [on something prior to it]").

That missing third option is "contingent". This covers those events for which we can say that although the event happened due to some cause, it did not "have to" happen because of that cause; it simply "did" happen because of that cause. (Note that, as this implies, "contingent" is being used here not in its sense as "subject to chance" but in its sense as "dependent [on something prior to it]", and that, again as implied, in the context of this article a further non-standard stipulation is added: that the dependency is not one of necessitation).

Initially, this possibility might seem difficult to accept. It might be tempting to ask: if an effect is an outcome of a cause, then shouldn't that cause ''always'' and ''necessarily'' produce that effect? How could there be such a thing as a cause that doesn't ''have to'' produce a given effect?

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 Now, by basic logic (the law of excluded middle) and syntax it is easy to see that "deterministic versus indeterministic" is a genuinely mutually exclusive dichotomy, however, a little insight leads to the conclusion that the dichotomy "necessitated versus random" is not. It has a gap in it - a gap into which a third option compatible with free will slots. Something has gone missing in translation.
-That missing third option is "contingent". This covers those events for which we can say that although the event happened due to some cause, it did not "have to" happen because of that cause; it simply "did" happen because of that cause. (Note that, as this implies, "contingent" is being used here not in its sense as "subject to chance" but in its sense as "dependent [on something prior to it]").
+That missing third option is "contingent". This covers those events for which we can say that although the event happened due to some cause, it did not "have to" happen because of that cause; it simply "did" happen because of that cause. (Note that, as this implies, "contingent" is being used here not in its sense as "subject to chance" but in its sense as "dependent [on something prior to it]", and that, again as implied, in the context of this article a further non-standard stipulation is added: that the dependency is not one of necessitation).
 Initially, this possibility might seem difficult to accept. It might be tempting to ask: if an effect is an outcome of a cause, then shouldn't that cause ''always'' and ''necessarily'' produce that effect? How could there be such a thing as a cause that doesn't ''have to'' produce a given effect?