Tag: Freedom

A Multi-Stage Refutation of the Standard Argument Against Free Will

For a long time, the philosophical debate around Libertarian Free Will (LFW) has been dominated by the Standard Argument (SA). A cornerstone of the SA is often the simple, yet powerful, equivalence it draws: Indeterminism = Arbitrary Randomness. This equivalence leads directly to the conclusion that undetermined actions, being merely random, cannot be controlled or rational, thus undermining LFW. “The Gauntlet” (Version 1.2) is a comprehensive, multi-stage philosophical argument designed to decisively dismantle this foundational equivalence and, in doing so, expose the untenability of the Standard Argument in its most common form.

The Gauntlet’s power doesn’t come from a single insight but from its structured, synergistic sequence of challenges, built upon solid theoretical groundings in both the Propensity Theory of Probability (PTP) ––an established theory of objective probability independent of the free will debate–– and well-founded Reason-Responsive (RR) models often employed within LFW, particularly event-causal accounts.

The Gauntlet’s Strategy: A Layered Approach

The argumentation unfolds through a series of carefully sequenced challenges:

1. Establishing Coherence and Relevance (Ch 0 & Intro Ch): The Gauntlet first establishes the crucial groundwork. Challenge 0 (“A Rough Start”) demonstrates the conceptual coherence of Non-Random Indeterministic Dispositions (NRIDs), showing via PTP and RR that indeterminism doesn’t have to be arbitrary. The Introductory Challenge (“Laying down the groundwork”) immediately links this to agency, arguing that only such a PTP+RR model can adequately account for Intentional Action Control (IAC), unlike deterministic PRNGs or purely stochastic QRNGs.
2. Securing the Definitions (Ch 1 & Ch 2): Challenge 1 (“Hostile Grounds”) isolates the intrinsically non-random nature of propensities themselves as stable dispositions. Building on this and the coherence of NRID (from Ch 0), Challenge 2 (“A Stronger Definition”) tackles the definition of indeterminism head-on. It argues compellingly that a definition based on alternative possibilities (SDa) is extensionally superior to one equating indeterminism solely with arbitrary randomness (SDb), precisely because SDb wrongly excludes coherent PTP and LFW models. The complementarity of Challenge 0 and Challenge 2 is key here, solidifying the case for taking structured indeterminism seriously both conceptually and definitionally. It seems to me that to successfully refute this definitional critique will prove to be an exceptionally challenging task.
3. The Core Critique (Ch 3: The Final Blow): With the foundations laid, Challenge 3 delivers the central attack on the SA. It exposes the SA’s implicit reliance on the weak Commonplace Thesis (CT) via a Premise of Exclusivity (PE), evidenced by its dismissal of the viable PTP/LFW alternatives established earlier. This renders the SA guilty of begging the question or relying on an incomplete, unjustified basis.
4. Consolidating the Critique (Ch 3.1 & Ch 3.2): These final challenges secure the gains. Challenge 3.1 (“A brutal wake-up”) formalizes the petitio principii charge against using the Standard Objection (SO) in this context, highlighting a move assessed as extremely difficult to counter logically. Challenge 3.2 (“Caught on the Horns”) demonstrates the resulting dilemma faced by critics when trying to attack specific, plausible event-causal LFW models based on their indeterminism, reinforcing the coherence of these models against standard attacks.

Why the Gauntlet is Powerful and Resilient

The effectiveness of this argumentative structure stems from several factors:

• Synergy and Logical Flow: Each challenge builds logically on the conclusions of the previous ones, creating a cumulative force where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
• Multiple Angles of Attack: The core “Indeterminism = Randomness” premise is assailed conceptually (PTP/NRID), agentively (IAC), definitionally (SDa vs. SDb), logically (critique of SA’s structure), and dialectically (petitio principii, dilemma).
• Robust Foundations & Resilience: Grounded in both PTP and LFW/RR models, the Gauntlet possesses resilience. Even if critics focus on the application of PTP to agency, the arguments retain potential force by relying on the independent coherence of LFW/RR models, which Challenge 3.2 shows are themselves difficult to refute based solely on indeterminism.
• Strong Defense Structure: The central argument (C3) is heavily fortified. The “upstream” challenges (C0-C2) establish the necessary premises about structured indeterminism and definitions. The “downstream” challenges (C3.1-C3.2) actively defend C3 by neutralizing the main counter-objection (SO) and demonstrating the resilience of LFW models.
• Power Through Precision: Crucially, the Gauntlet derives immense strength from its focused and arguably modest conclusion. It doesn’t need to prove LFW is true or solve all associated problems. Its primary, stated goal is to refute the equivalence premise central to the Standard Argument. By achieving this decisively, it demonstrates that the SA, in its most common and influential form, is untenable. This targeted strike makes the conclusion highly robust and effectively shifts the burden of proof, demanding a much more sophisticated response from critics than simply repeating the traditional dilemma.

Summary Table: The Gauntlet’s Structure

# / Title	Main Goal / Conclusion	Key Dependencies (Previous Arg#)	Key Contributions (For Subsequent Arg#)
Ch 0: A Rough Start	Establish coherence of NRID via PTP+RR.	None (Uses PTP/RR concepts)	Concept of NRID; Possibility of Structured Indeterminism.
Intro Ch: Laying Groundwork	Show PTP+RR explains IAC better than PRNG/QRNG.	Ch 0 (NRID concept)	Agentive relevance of PTP+RR; Limits of other models.
Ch 1: Hostile Grounds	Affirm non-random nature of PTP propensities themselves as properties.	Intro Ch / Ch 0 (PTP context)	Isolates key property of propensities; Basis for C2, C3.
Ch 2: A Stronger Definition	Argue for SDa (possibilities) over SDb (arbitrary randomness) definition.	Ch 0/1 (for PTP coherence)	Validates SDa; Invalidates DSb; Secures definitional ground for C3.
Ch 3: The Final Blow	Critique SA via PE/CT and its exclusion of PTP/LFW.	Ch 0, 1, 2	Main attack on SA; Justifies C3.1 & C3.2.
Ch 3.1: A brutal wake-up	Formalize petitio principii of using SO against structured indeterminism.	Ch 1, 2, 3	Neutralizes SO; Defends C3 (coherence of alternatives).
Ch 3.2: Caught on the Horns	Present dilemma for critics attacking ECL indeterminism after SO neutralization.	Ch 1, 2, 3, 3.1	Shows difficulty of attacking LFW; Defends C3.

In essence, The Gauntlet offers a clear, logical, targeted, well-founded, and multi-layered argument whose cumulative effect is to render the standard “Indeterminism = Randomness” objection against libertarian free will untenable, demanding a fundamental shift in the terms of the debate.