Posted: Oct 18, 2018 4:34 am
Of course it isn't. If at time one an agent can perform action A and distinct action B, then as A isn't B, if the agent performs B then they could have performed A. "Could" is just the past tense of "can".scott1328 wrote:the statement “could have done otherwise” is semantically meaningless.
Well, science requires that we can repeat procedures and it also requires controls, so there is more than one scientific procedure. This immediately entails that science requires that we can perform at least two distinct actions, and once we've performed one, that we could have performed a different one. In other words, science requires that we "could have done otherwise".scott1328 wrote:There is no possible world in which such world where such a statement could be verified. So ditching an incoherent definition is the only possibility.
Now, what could anyone think is so important about denying the reality of free will, that they're prepared to throw out science in support of it?