Recent content by Michael S. Pearl

But the words “contemplate” and “consider” are not themselves descriptive. They can refer to experiences, but they do not describe experiences.

Do you experience this willing? If so, can you describe that experience?

Rather than addressing my previous remark about alternative interpretations, you have just reiterated the very problem noted in my previous posting. Maybe that can get taken up at some other time or, if not some other time, then some other place.

I am aware and have long been aware that you exhibit no facility for coming to understand others. A tool that is useful for developing an aptitude for understanding others is an actual, genuine realization that modal logic is relevantly applied in actual engagement with others; application is...

That is sheer, unmitigated non-sense. If what you say were true, then compatibilism would simply be the belief that free will were possible. But, then, calling that belief compatibilism would be sheer and unmitigated non-sense in itself, because the very word compatibilism indicates a claimed...

Just to clarify, the reason I have cast discussion in terms of the macrophysical was to note the context as one which is more at the human level and not at the quantum or microphysical level. So, I do not know whether your "micro" was a typo or beside the point. Accordingly, I will assume it to...

If compatibilism makes no claims about determinism, then it is not possible for compatibilism to maintain that free will and determinism are compatible. At the very least, compatibilism most certainly has to characterize - make claims about - determinism. You might mean that compatibilism need...

But that seemed to be your way of interpreting my use of eternal and its related forms. Even if your interpretation is a possible understanding of my expression that is alternative to my meaning/understanding, it does not follow that your interpretation is the only possible and legitimate...

That is not necessarily the case. Instead of describing "something free of some particular context", it is possible for it to describe something that holds in and across all particular contexts. So, is it your position that all particular physical or spacetime contexts are devoid of...

Let's try to work with that manner of expression. According to your thinking, is it "everywhere and in all positions true" that there is no macrophysical indeterminateness? Do you think there is any context in which there is macrophysical indeterminateness? Whatever problems there might be, in...

That is NOT being done. The viewpoint at hand has it that no phenomena are eternal; no phenomena within spacetime are eternally actual. If you think that there is never any macrophysical indeterminateness, then you posit eternal determinateness - wittingly or otherwise. Eternal...

The non-static spacetime viewpoint does no such thing. Per the non-static spacetime viewpoint, there is no eternal is. It is the assumption of there being no macrophysical indeterminateness at any spacetime location which renders determinateness eternal. The conjoining of the non-static...

Does the following help? If determinism denies that there is macrophysical indeterminateness (such as the macrophysical indeterminateness which persons think they experience/sense/observe when they decide/select/choose), then determinism is incompatible with macrophysical indeterminateness. If...

Eternal is not a synonym of necessary, and this is the case with or without God - as I will now explain. Given a static spacetime which, as per determinism, is assumed to be fully determinate not only in terms of the spacetime morphology or topography but also with regards to all events within...

False. Nothing got tucked in. If the determinist holds that there is no macrophysical indeterminateness in a spacetime which is utterly determinate, then that is identical to holding that all states within spacetime are states of utter macrophysical determinateness, and the "time" part of...