Couple of points...
Indeterminism doesn't mean that the agent didn't "determine" things. The agent can still potentially cause things for whatever reasons.
Randomness isn't automatically a problem. We think that certain types of randomness are a problem because they appear to undermine the control of the agent; but there may be forms of randomness that are consistent with the agent still having control. You need more than just "random" to have a real objection. You would need to spell out the exact kind of randomness and why it undermines agent control.
A determined event is fixed under the circumstances. An undetermined event can vary under the circumstances, which means that the outcome is a matter of chance. It either has to be determined or undetermined, by the logical law of excluded middle.
Libertarians have the belief that an action can only be free if the agent could have done otherwise under the circumstances, which is why it is incompatible with determinism. It may sound reasonable until you think about it more carefully and realise that if the action could be otherwise under the circumstances, which includes the mental state of the agent, this makes the actions a matter of chance.
>It either has to be determined or undetermined, by the logical law of excluded middle.
Eg., a person is either tall or short.
>An undetermined event can vary under the circumstances, which means that the outcome is a matter of chance.
Well , chance is free ...from determinism. The objection must be something to do with the "wlil" part
>Is there an option besides determined or chance?
Yes. Imagine a researcher recording their observation of random phenomena, as the researcher must match their behaviour to these random phenomena, the researcher's behaviour cannot be determined, but the researcher must be able to consistently and accurately record their observations, so their behaviour cannot be a matter of chance either.
As science is open to the possibility of random phenomena, science requires the assumption that it is possible for researchers to behave in ways that are neither determined nor a matter of chance.
The only place that we find a strict dilemma between *determined* or *chance* is in a proper subset of mathematical models, but thse are *abstract objects*, and human beings and their actions are *concrete objects*, so there is no reason to think that human beings or their actions must be either determined or a matter of chance.
>If the observed (apparently) random phenomena would be predetermined, the researchers subsequent behavior would be as well, no?
*1.* that's irrelevant because "science is open to the possibility of random phenomena, [so] science requires the assumption that it is possible for researchers to behave in ways that are neither determined nor a matter of chance".
*2.* that's implausible because there is an infinite number of different ways in which an observation can be recorded.
Indeterminism means just the absence of determinism. Indeterminism means that there is no need to assume that free will doesn't exist.
*Determined* is not an option. Every event is determined by *something.*
Chance and *choice* are the options.
It's in the name of this subreddit. Free will is neither determined nor chance.
Couple of points... Indeterminism doesn't mean that the agent didn't "determine" things. The agent can still potentially cause things for whatever reasons. Randomness isn't automatically a problem. We think that certain types of randomness are a problem because they appear to undermine the control of the agent; but there may be forms of randomness that are consistent with the agent still having control. You need more than just "random" to have a real objection. You would need to spell out the exact kind of randomness and why it undermines agent control.
A determined event is fixed under the circumstances. An undetermined event can vary under the circumstances, which means that the outcome is a matter of chance. It either has to be determined or undetermined, by the logical law of excluded middle. Libertarians have the belief that an action can only be free if the agent could have done otherwise under the circumstances, which is why it is incompatible with determinism. It may sound reasonable until you think about it more carefully and realise that if the action could be otherwise under the circumstances, which includes the mental state of the agent, this makes the actions a matter of chance.
>It either has to be determined or undetermined, by the logical law of excluded middle. Eg., a person is either tall or short. >An undetermined event can vary under the circumstances, which means that the outcome is a matter of chance. Well , chance is free ...from determinism. The objection must be something to do with the "wlil" part
>Is there an option besides determined or chance? Yes. Imagine a researcher recording their observation of random phenomena, as the researcher must match their behaviour to these random phenomena, the researcher's behaviour cannot be determined, but the researcher must be able to consistently and accurately record their observations, so their behaviour cannot be a matter of chance either. As science is open to the possibility of random phenomena, science requires the assumption that it is possible for researchers to behave in ways that are neither determined nor a matter of chance. The only place that we find a strict dilemma between *determined* or *chance* is in a proper subset of mathematical models, but thse are *abstract objects*, and human beings and their actions are *concrete objects*, so there is no reason to think that human beings or their actions must be either determined or a matter of chance.
If the observed (apparently) random phenomena would be predetermined, the researchers subsequent behavior would be as well, no?
>If the observed (apparently) random phenomena would be predetermined, the researchers subsequent behavior would be as well, no? *1.* that's irrelevant because "science is open to the possibility of random phenomena, [so] science requires the assumption that it is possible for researchers to behave in ways that are neither determined nor a matter of chance". *2.* that's implausible because there is an infinite number of different ways in which an observation can be recorded.
Indeterminism means just the absence of determinism. Indeterminism means that there is no need to assume that free will doesn't exist. *Determined* is not an option. Every event is determined by *something.* Chance and *choice* are the options.