Now you see you say all this and it is still not clear to me:
do you think there is one possible future (fixed) or many possible futures?
do you think you have the possibility to do otherwise or that your actions, decisions, thoughts and feelings are likewise fixed and determined?

Because I have to tell you when people tell me that they are a compatibilist, an incompatibilist, a determinist or a free will libertarian, I just do not know what they mean anymore. Half the time I do not think they know what they mean. The "ability to do otherwise" and the "fixity of the future" although not without their own conceptual problems at least seem clearer.

That there is and has only ever been one possible evolution of the world, is the basic and essential claim of determinism.

Maybe it follows from determinism, but that is exactly what soft determinists deny, that it does follow from determinism.

No it is not.
1) soft determinists are determinists
2) if the evolution of the world is not exactly and globally fixed, then determinism is false
3) therefore soft determinist believe that the evolution of the world is exactly and globally fixed.
If you think that some agents on some occasions perform acts of free will, and if you think that free will requires that the evolution of the world is not exactly and globally fixed, then you are a libertarian.

It is late. I am tired. but briefly

I do not think the future is fixed. At the very least there is indeterminism in the quantum world (which does not mean there are not causes for quantum behavior). Quantum indeterminism leads to some degree of indeterminism in the macro world as well and there are other reasons, chaos theory, fractals, strange attractors, etc. That is not to say there is not a large degree of order and predictability, just that there is a degree of freedom in the future. I think the conflation of determinism and causality is wrong headed. Determinism is the notion that the future is fixed by the state of the present.

"Libertarian free will" is not behavior without causes or without constraints such a notion is silly. Libertarian free will is the "ability to do otherwise" or perhaps the notion that "moral responsibility" is preserved. I admit that how "free will" would operate is a mystery. It is incompatible with fixity of the future and indeterminism or randomness is no help either. Still I think our sense of rational deliberation and willful choice as well as our sense of our choices affecting or resulting in different futures is real. I think extrapolating from billiard balls to the human mind is a huge stretch and that some mechanism for meaningful free will and moral responsibility will emerge. Perhaps only the "avoidance of futility" and conditioned behaviors but I sense there is more to it than that. I think there is some small degree of freedom present in all events and that events are reality.

Are you a determinists, or a libertarian?

The latter. . . . . . .

whatever you ofter, i can explain away using deterministic laws

you position is neither necessary, or useful.

1.This is false.


2.And this is irrelevant.

Ola Pepjns !
Have you eared about Coimbra University ? Its really old and full of History...

This is contrary to science.

You are I would say both a hard determinist (meaning you think the future is fixed) and an incompatiblist (meaning you think "free will" is false and "hard determinism" is true). Please correct me if I am wrong.

Not that it will make any difference to you, since you seem unusually self assured about what the meaning of these terms are in "true philosophy" but three separate entries in the SEP by three different authors writing about the issue of free will and determinism disagree with your definition and usage of "determinism" and also with your narrow notion of "libertarian free will". I am a non determinist but that does not mean that I think events occur without causes only that I think the future is not fixed. I am also a "libertarian free will advocate" but that does not mean that I think human behavior is without causes, deliberations or reason only that one can do otherwise. We can of course continue to discuss the "true" meaning of these terms but perhaps the more basic concepts about the non fixity of the future and the ability to do otherwise are both more important and clearer. I might add it is not only the people writing for the SEP that use the terms differently than you but also most of the writers in Wiki and the IEP as well as many other sites devoted to philosophy and free will and determinism.

Determinism and free will are both metaphysical matters, they are outside the scope of science.

I am reasonably certain what these the philosophical use of these terms is among philosophers, if that is what you mean. Just as I am about what physicists mean by the term, "mass" or "acceleration". Just as in physics technical terms have accepted meanings in philosophy. And what their accepted meanings are is not really debatable. Of course, there may be differences in small details, but not in the general meaning of those terms.

As an illustration, necessarily, all hard determininist are incompatibilists, just as all bachelors are unmarried, and for the same kind of reason. Definition. A hard determinist is: a. a determinist, and b. holds that determinism and free will are incompatible. A combatibilist hard determinist is, therefore, just as much a contradiction in terms as is a married bachelor.

A libertarian cannot be a determinist, again by definition. Libertarianism is the view that free will is true because determinism is false. All libertarians are incompatibilists. That is, they hold that determinism is incompatible with free will. That is simply a fact about how the term "libertarian" is used by philosophers.

This is not a philosophical issue, it is a straight-forwardly factual issue like the spelling of a term. Only it is about the meaning of a term. That it is about the meaning of a philosophical term does not make it a philosophical issue any more than that it is about the spelling of a philosophical term makes it a philosophical issue. The true meaning of a term, so far as I understand that phrase, is simply its meaning. And its meaning consists in the way it is used by those who use it, and in this case, that is philosophers.

why did? She move from lisboa ?

I am terrible at logic ! I think it's so boring.

What is the argument for a determinist who is also a compatiblist?

:meeting:

I think logic is boring. I have not used much of it for a long Time
and am still alive and happier than ever.

I like ana-logica more, and chance & possibility ... U are a logic think-ing but their's more to Philosophia.