Philosophy Now Forum

Pereboom's Four Case Argument against Compatibilism at Philosophical Disquisitions

Reasons-responsive account: A decision can be said to be free if it is caused by a decision-making mechanism that is sufficiently responsive to reasons. In other words, if the mechanism had been presented with a different set of reasons-for-action, it would have produced a different decision (in at least some possible worlds). This is the account associated with Fischer and Ravizza, and comes in several different forms (weak, moderate and strong responsiveness).

On the other hand, how do we determine definitively whether or not in calling a decision free this is not in turn just another entirely determined component of the only possible reality? What if none of the "mechanisms" used here are autonomous? We might encounter any number of "reasons-for-action" sets but that may well be just another inherent manifestation of determinism.

Moral reasons-sensitivity account: A decision can be said to be free if it is produced by a decision-making mechanism that is capable of grasping and making use of moral reasons for action. This is the account associated with R. Jay Wallace. It is similar to Fischer and Ravizza’s account, but pays particular attention to the role of moral reasons in decision-making.

Over and over and over again, we come upon those here with conflicting assessments of a functioning human brain. In particular pertaining to moral responsibility. That's really the bottom line for many. In other words, we have to possess at least some measure of free will or we become little more than nature's automatons.

The rest seems to be embedded in The Gap and Rummy's Rule. Especially the part where we don't even know what we don't even know yet about the human condition.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 6:22 pm From Free Will and Determinism: A Dialogue by Clifford Williams.

Frederick [Mr. Free Will]: Can you explain why in your sense a person can be both free and determined?

Carolyn [Ms. Compatibilist]: Yes. A person can be free and determined because what he does can be caused by something that goes on inside him even though he is not forced by some circumstances outside of him to act as he does. If he is not forced by circumstances outside of himself to act as he does, then he acts freely. Yet his action could nonetheless be caused by something inside him, such as an unconscious motive or a brain state.

Frederick: ...a person could have freedom in your sense even though he had no control over anything he does. Let me explain. If everything a person does is caused by unconscious motives, as you say, then he would have no control over anything that he does. Unknown to him, he would be buffeted about by the workings of his unconscious mind. Yet such a person would have freedom in your sense of freedom because no external circumstances would prevent him from doing what he consciously wants to do. That means your conception of freedom is a sham --- a person who has freedom in your sense does not have control over what he does.

Yep, that is basically my own reaction to compatibilism. We have "conceptual"/"theoretical" freedom, but, for all practical purposes, we have no control over what we do because "internal" and "external" are seamlessly intertwined re the laws of matter.

As Frederick notes...

"You can call that freedom if you want to, but it is a psuedofreedom [SIC]."

And that, in my view, is often where the compatibilists go: letting it all revolve around what you call something, name something, define something. As though the inner "I" here was not the equivalent of all that is out in the world able to compel you to "choose" this instead of that.

Here I always come back to "I" in our dreams. The "freedom" we are convinced we have all the way up to the point when we wake up. The waking "I" no less a manifestation of the laws of matter. Only, far, far, far more inexplicably.

Agreed. Although the story carries us in dreams, even cognitive ones.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 12:45 am "even though he is not forced by some circumstances outside of him to act as he does"

--Then determinism isn't the case and we don't have compatibilism after all.

Of course, we'd need to explain on this view why decisions are "determined" by internal states but internal states aren't determined by external states (why would the ontology in this situation amount to causal determinism within a person while the person is immune to causal forces external to their body? Why would we think that's what physics/ontology in general is like?), but it's not really compatibilism because determinism is the view that there is no ontological freedom period.

My brain isn't immune to sunshine.

If by a 'free will ' action we mean a voluntary action, an action chosen because we want to do it, then the will is quite often free.

But a thoroughly voluntary action is itself caused, so that the voluntary action could not be other than it was. By contrast, ontic free will is uncaused and is therefor random. I don't understand true randomness, which is not mere unaccountability; you would have to ask the physicists if true randomness is even possible.

Since ontic free will is impossible (unless the physicists say otherwise)there is nothing for determinism to be compatible with.

The result of the EPR experiment shows that space does not exist ontologically. If we run with that ball perhaps time, and force , don't exist ontologically. In which case each and every every event was a necessary event.
Remember , the EPR experiment was empirical . That means we are stuck with probability not certainty when we try to predict.

Pereboom's Four Case Argument against Compatibilism at Philosophical Disquisitions

As you can see, all of these accounts [above] claim that a certain type of causal sequence has the “right stuff” for free will, irrespective of whether the decisions produced are fully determined by those causal sequences.

But what if every single claim is just another inherent manifestation of the only possible reality? In other words, even if others see your own claim as false and their own as true, what does true and false really mean when for all practical purposes the claims are wholly determined by brains entirely in sync with the laws of matter?

As for what all of this may or may not mean, same thing. If what we think it means reflects only that which we were never able to think otherwise...?

Pereboom challenges this with a manipulation argument.

Okay, how exactly did Pereboom explain his challenges as anything other than his own brain inherently manipulating him to think, feel, intuit, say and do only that which he was never able not to. Him then being entirely manipulated in turn...fated? destined? just one more of nature's human automatons?

This is a species of argument that starts with the simple supposition that if a decision by one agent (A) has been manipulated into existence by another agent (B), there is no way in which we can say that this decision has been “freely” made by A. On the contrary, it is produced by something that is beyond A’s control. So if I grab your hand, place a knife in it, and then proceed to use your arm to stab another person, the act of stabbing is clearly not a product of your free will.

Of course, this is where I often get "stuck". People will speak of those who might grab your arm, stick a knife in your hand and force you to stab someone. But that assumes that the person who grabs your arm did so autonomously. Others might be manipulating [using, gaslighting] you to do things that they were themselves no less compelled to do.

It is a product of my manipulation. Manipulation arguments then simply add to this starting point the more controversial claim that, on compatibilism, all decisions are effectively manipulated into existence by factors beyond an agent’s control. Consequently, none of them can be said to be free.

Or, if you conclude there are parts which indicate some measure of free will, how would you go about eliminating the possibility that those parts too aren't manifestation of the psychological illusions of autonomy?

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed May 28, 2025 12:03 pm ...
The result of the EPR experiment shows that space does not exist ontologically. If we run with that ball perhaps time, and force , don't exist ontologically. In which case each and every every event was a necessary event.
Remember , the EPR experiment was empirical . That means we are stuck with probability not certainty when we try to predict.

That all depends on your hermeneutic of QM.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sat Jun 07, 2025 11:38 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed May 28, 2025 12:03 pm ...
The result of the EPR experiment shows that space does not exist ontologically. If we run with that ball perhaps time, and force , don't exist ontologically. In which case each and every every event was a necessary event.
Remember , the EPR experiment was empirical . That means we are stuck with probability not certainty when we try to predict.

That all depends on your hermeneutic of QM.

it's not my hermeneutic it's that of the television programme I saw, and a certain university lecturer's extramural course during the 1980s ,and reading some popular science, I know next to nothing of physics and need to rely on a trusted secondary source. For instance I got David Bohm's book Wholeness and the Implicate Order and I could understand none of the physics chapters only the philosophical chapter.

Back to 'Compatibilism'. The hermeneutic I used was one which I learned from others i.e. it was caused. The circumstances of my learning it were causal circumstances such as I happened to be in Edinburgh where there was an excellent extramural provision. If I had lived in Derby where the tradition is commercial not academic my life would have gone in a different direction.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Jun 07, 2025 11:50 am

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sat Jun 07, 2025 11:38 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed May 28, 2025 12:03 pm ...
The result of the EPR experiment shows that space does not exist ontologically. If we run with that ball perhaps time, and force , don't exist ontologically. In which case each and every every event was a necessary event.
Remember , the EPR experiment was empirical . That means we are stuck with probability not certainty when we try to predict.

That all depends on your hermeneutic of QM.

it's not my hermeneutic it's that of the television programme I saw, and a certain university lecturer's extramural course during the 1980s ,and reading some popular science, I know next to nothing of physics and need to rely on a trusted secondary source. For instance I got David Bohm's book Wholeness and the Implicate Order and I could understand none of the physics chapters only the philosophical chapter.

Back to 'Compatibilism'. The hermeneutic I used was one which I learned from others i.e. it was caused. The circumstances of my learning it were causal circumstances such as I happened to be in Edinburgh where there was an excellent extramural provision. If I had lived in Derby where the tradition is commercial not academic my life would have gone in a different direction.

I asked wha friend Sophia,

Please evaluate this statement, 'The result of the EPR experiment shows that space does not exist ontologically.'

and she said,

The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) experiment is a thought experiment that challenges the completeness of quantum mechanics by demonstrating quantum entanglement—where two particles remain correlated regardless of the distance between them. Some interpretations of quantum mechanics suggest that entangled particles do not have independent spatial existence until measured, leading to discussions about whether space itself is a fundamental ontological entity or an emergent property of quantum interactions.

The claim that "space does not exist ontologically" is a strong philosophical stance that depends on how one interprets quantum mechanics. Some interpretations, such as the relational or non-spatial views, argue that quantum entities do not always exist in space in the classical sense. However, other interpretations maintain that space remains a fundamental aspect of reality, even if quantum mechanics challenges our classical understanding of locality.

Which is much more, sanely more reasonable.

The remainder of your 'philosophical' musings about physics cannot withstand a filleting knife either.

'If we run with that ball perhaps time, and force , don't exist ontologically.'

We don't. And there is no reason to what follows if we do. Time is a number line for measuring change in 3D matter. In is inextricable from space. Spacetime is expanding, but the expansion primarily affects space. As described by the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) metric. No space. No time. No nothing. Time is either all present, or only the present. Common sense says the latter, a minority view...

'In which case each and every every event was a necessary event.'

Can you join up the dots from no space, no time, no force (ma) and nonetheless events please?

'Remember , the EPR experiment was empirical . That means we are stuck with probability not certainty when we try to predict.'

And, er, how can a thought experiment be empirical?

I am not a physicist either. We are stuck with probability whenever we measure.

ChatGPT:

Conclusion:
The original EPR "experiment" was not empirical, but a philosophical and theoretical challenge to quantum theory. Only later were empirical experiments performed that addressed its implications.

Did you not see the TV programme about the EPR experiment? It was very well made.As I said I'm not a physicist but for an amateur like me the evidence as presented was irrefutable .
And yes, change is how we experience the world relative to the constraints of our senses. Spacetime is a function of change, so is force.
ChatGPT traced the TV programme about quantum entanglement:
Einstein’s Quantum Riddle (BBC Four / NOVA, 2019)
A feature-length documentary (~58 min) tracing the history of entanglement from Einstein's 1935 EPR paradox through Bell's inequality tests and Alain Aspect’s pivotal experiments
windfallfilms.com
+15
bbc.co.uk
+15
en.wikipedia.org
+15
.

Includes modern developments like Marissa Giustina’s quantum chip and space-to-ground quantum communication
bbc.co.uk
.


Streaming & On-Demand Options
Prime Video (UK & US): Available to rent (approx. £3.49 / $3.99) or buy HD (≈£7.99 / $19.99)
yidio.com
+15
amazon.co.uk
+15
youtube.com
+15
.

Apple TV: Also available to purchase digitally in the UK .

PBS/NOVA Website: Frequently shown on the PBS NOVA official site—you can watch it free there if the episode is available
youtube.com
+4
tpt.org
+4
yidio.com
+4

In any case, my main point was that my hermeneutic was determined largely by my residence in Edinburgh , a city with an old , well -endowed, university tradition where the university had and maybe still has a strong extramural department. This fact linking to my choice of hermeneutic is largely an effect of my residence in Edinburgh , combined with an unusual OU undergraduate module I did during the 70s.

Each of us chooses according to a hermeneutic, which is a fancy word for how each of interprets reality. Dasein.


Comparing interpretations of reality is why I visit Philosophy Now. You?

Quantum Key Distribution (QKD) & Secure Communications
What it is:
Using entangled photon pairs, two parties can create shared encryption keys that are provably secure. Any eavesdropping disrupts entanglement, alerting users.
quantinuum.com
+15
en.wikipedia.org
+15
weta.org
+15

Key developments:

In April 2025, Toshiba Europe conducted QKD over a 254 km commercial fibre network in Germany, using only standard telecom equipment—marking a major step toward widespread deployment
arxiv.org
+2
ft.com
+2
arxiv.org
+2
.

Switzerland’s ID Quantique pioneered QKD commercially in 2004, supplying systems still used today by banks and governments
spinquanta.com
+7
en.wikipedia.org
+7
en.wikipedia.org
+7
.

Additional players include MagiQ (from 2003), QNu Labs, QuintessenceLabs and more
en.wikipedia.org
+1
en.wikipedia.org
+1
.

2. Quantum-Secure Networking & Infrastructure
Cisco (May 2025): unveiled a prototype quantum networking chip using entangled photons to interconnect quantum systems—and useful right away for precise time-sync in finance and geophysics
ft.com
+6
reuters.com
+6
ventureradar.com
+6
.

Aliro Quantum & Nu Quantum:

Aliro offers tools to build entanglement-based quantum networks, aiming for secure communications and clustered quantum compute
enterprise.cam.ac.uk
+3
ventureradar.com
+3
aliroquantum.com
+3
.

Nu Quantum (Cambridge-based) recently raised £7 million to build the physical “entanglement fabric” for scalable quantum networks
enterprise.cam.ac.uk
.

3. Quantum Cryptographic Services (“Quantum Origin”)
Quantinuum’s Quantum Origin platform generates quantum-strong cryptographic keys—offering services via cloud, hardware modules, even smart meters. This is the first commercial product using quantum entanglement directly for cybersecurity . Partners include PureVPN, Mitsui, Eaglys, and Honeywell.

4. Entangled Photons for Research & Sensing
Quantum Computing Inc. (QCi): markets an “Entanglement Source” device producing broadband entangled photons in telecom bands—useful for sensors, communications, and more
ft.com
+2
en.wikipedia.org
+2
ventureradar.com
+2
quantumcomputinginc.com
+1
arxiv.org
+1
.

Various quantum hubs (e.g., UK’s £100 million investment from 2024) are exploring entanglement-based sensors for blood diagnostics, gravity sensing, gas detection, and infrastructure monitoring
theguardian.com
.

5. Cloud-Based Quantum Computing
Entanglement plays a key role in quantum computing platforms:

Microsoft Azure Quantum, IBM Quantum, IonQ, Rigetti, Quantinuum, etc., offer cloud access to entanglement-enabled processors
wsj.com
+4
en.wikipedia.org
+4
investors.com
+4
.

Quantinuum, for instance, is commercializing error-corrected hardware and networked cryptographic services .

So in summary
QKD is now moving from lab to real-world networks (standard fiber over hundreds of km).

Quantum networking hardware (chips and infrastructure) is being built for secure, distributed systems.

Cryptographic services now include quantum-generated keys for enhanced security.

Entangled photon sources enable applied sensing and future quantum internet development.

Quantum cloud services depend on entanglement to perform computations and support cryptography.

What’s next?
Scaling QKD across national/international networks.

Deploying entanglement-based sensors in real-world industries.

Building the foundational “quantum internet” with secure entangled links.

Integrating quantum cryptography into consumer and IoT systems.

Final Thought
The Nova documentary captured the turning point—from theoretical curiosity to real-world applications. Today, quantum entanglement is already being used commercially in secure communications, cryptography services, networking hardware, sensing platforms, and cloud computation.

If you want to explore specific companies (like Cisco’s chip, Quantinuum’s Quantum Origin, etc.), or the technical mechanisms of QKD, I can dive deeper into any of those.

Chat GPT

There's enough commercial "common sense , above, for anyone. The documentary 'Einstein's Quantum Riddle' includes commercial applications.












Sources

My lengthy post above, connects with 'Compatibilism' via my example of how my residence in Edinburgh and access to Edinburgh University was a major circumstantial cause of the way I interpret reality. There is no need for me to add on the extra hypothesis of free will.

Iambiguous wrote:

Over and over and over again, we come upon those here with conflicting assessments of a functioning human brain. In particular pertaining to moral responsibility. That's really the bottom line for many. In other words, we have to possess at least some measure of free will or we become little more than nature's automatons.

To be reared and continue living in a culture of morality that strongly endorses , through significant others, personal responsibility is necessary and sufficient reason for sense of personal responsibility.


To add on an extra hypothesis such as religious or philosophical 'free will' is necessary only for added social control where the culture is deemed insufficient without added supernatural authority.

"It will always be quite impossible to explain the mind on the basis of neuronal action within the brain.... Although the content of consciousness depends in large measure on neuronal activity, awareness itself does not....To me, it seems more and more reasonable to suggest that the mind may be a distinct and different essence"  Wilder Penfield

Okay, going back to all we still do not know regarding how and why the human condition fits into an explanation for the existence of existence itself, it may well be that human brains will never be able to grasp it...ontologically? teleologically? deontologically?

Instead, those like henry quirk simply aver -- assert, affirm, declare, state, allege, claim -- that a God, the God, their God implanted free will in our very souls at the point of conception. Or something along those lines.

For henry, it's the Deist God. 

Only he is long gone and may well never return to His...Creation?

Then this part...

'All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.'

Where's the link to an actual argument -- proof? -- that comes closest to a consensus "here and now" among philosophers, scientists [and theologians?] regarding the human brain/mind relationship.

Finally [for those of my own considerably more cynical, uncertain, ambiguous bent], it all comes back around to this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... _eruptions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... l_cyclones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tsunamis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landslides
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fires
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_e ... _pandemics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornado_records
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_diseases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinction_events  

Okay, consciousness is finally pinned down. And, as well, in a world where it is determined [no pun intended]  that "somehow" we did acquire free will.

Someone or something "out there" either is or is not able to encompass human interactions given a font from which all that is Creation is encompassed. 

Which, of course, most call God.

Determined by Robert Sapolsky
Philip Badger questions Robert Sapolsky’s determinism.

Robert Sapolsky is that rare thing in modern academia, a true polymath. This is evidenced by his multiple and simultaneously held professorships, which range from Anthropology to Neurology, as well as his willingness to stick his nose into what philosophers often consider to be their business.

Click.

And from my own perspective, the business of philosophers is to take what they construe theoretically...in a world of words by and large...to be logical and epistemologically sound and note how for all practical purposes their assessment is applicable given their own moral, political and spiritual interactions with others.

And again, in particular, those interactions that revolve around conflicting goods.

In this case, that business is the debate around free will. Sapolsky espouses a ‘hard’, if non-reductive, form of determinism – the idea that all physical activity is determined by previous physical activity, including in the brain, and so there is no free choice.

A non-reductive form of determinism? If this is something you accept please note in turn how that is applicable regarding your own assessment of meaning, morality and metaphysics.

Also, the part where I'd tap those on the shoulder who espouse determinism, and ask them if it includes their own arguments as well. In other words, those who argue for determinism but "somehow" their brain always provides them with the best arguments here.

From the outset, Sapolsky dismisses outright the classical notion of ‘free will’, which is typically associated with a ‘dualist’ metaphysics – the claim that reality consists of both a causally-determined physical realm and a non-physical mental realm in which events are not causally determined. Instead, for Sapolsky, the real opposition to determinism, at least these days, comes from various forms of ‘compatibilism’ – the idea that free will is compatible with determinism.

As always, it's not so much what people believe philosophically about this, but the extent to which they are actually able to effectively demonstrate, in turn, why all those who wish to think of themselves as rational human beings must think the same.

In particular in regard to things like Mary asking a compatibilist how, if she was never able not to abort her unborn baby/clump of cells, she should still be held morally responsible for doing so.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Jun 14, 2025 10:27 pm Determined by Robert Sapolsky
Philip Badger questions Robert Sapolsky’s determinism.

Robert Sapolsky is that rare thing in modern academia, a true polymath. This is evidenced by his multiple and simultaneously held professorships, which range from Anthropology to Neurology, as well as his willingness to stick his nose into what philosophers often consider to be their business.

Click.

So you say "click" to transition between states of mind, right, or perspectives? Like you click between determinist and free will perspectives, or something like that? We've asked you what click means before, and you said something along those lines. So why does this paragraph make you "click"? What's there to "click" about in the quoted text?

And from my own perspective, the business of philosophers is to take what they construe theoretically...in a world of words by and large...to be logical and epistemologically sound and note how for all practical purposes their assessment is applicable given their own moral, political and spiritual interactions with others.

What does that have to do with the text you quoted?

And again, in particular, those interactions that revolve around conflicting goods.

And again, in particular, what does this have to do with the text you quoted?

Click.

You don't seem to ever really respond to the things you read. It's almost like the words in these articles are just there for you to quote and ignore. What's up with that? What's the point of quoting stuff that you're not even going to try to understand and reply to?

Click.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Jun 15, 2025 9:37 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Jun 14, 2025 10:27 pm Determined by Robert Sapolsky
Philip Badger questions Robert Sapolsky’s determinism.

Robert Sapolsky is that rare thing in modern academia, a true polymath. This is evidenced by his multiple and simultaneously held professorships, which range from Anthropology to Neurology, as well as his willingness to stick his nose into what philosophers often consider to be their business.

Click.

So you say "click" to transition between states of mind, right, or perspectives? Like you click between determinist and free will perspectives, or something like that? We've asked you what click means before, and you said something along those lines. So why does this paragraph make you "click"? What's there to "click" about in the quoted text?

Again: 

I use "click" because I'm the first to admit that given The Gap and Rummy's Rule, what are the odds that my own assessment of the human brain "here and now" is the correct one?

Or, for that matter, yours or anyone else's here.

From my frame of mind, It's the equivalent of taking an existential leap of faith to God. In other words, given that scientists, philosophers and theologians have yet to reach a consensus regarding the existence of free will [going back thousands of years now], a click on my part here is only me acknowledging this.

Maybe we are posting autonomously here and maybe we're not. So, by all means, if anyone here is convinced they've found an argument that establishes this one way or the other, please link me to it.

And from my own perspective, the business of philosophers is to take what they construe theoretically...in a world of words by and large...to be logical and epistemologically sound and note how for all practical purposes their assessment is applicable given their own moral, political and spiritual interactions with others.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Jun 15, 2025 9:37 pmWhat does that have to do with the text you quoted?

Which particular text? And, by all means, note the parts I got wrong by providing me with what you construe to be the one and only correct understanding.
 
Given a particular set of circumstances pertaining to your own interactions with others.

And again, in particular, those interactions that revolve around conflicting goods.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Jun 15, 2025 9:37 pmAnd again, in particular, what does this have to do with the text you quoted?

Again, which particular parts did I get wrong?

Flannel Stooge wrote: ↑Sun Jun 15, 2025 9:37 pmYou don't seem to ever really respond to the things you read. It's almost like the words in these articles are just there for you to quote and ignore. What's up with that? What's the point of quoting stuff that you're not even going to try to understand and reply to?

Click.

Then -- click -- just skip my posts.  

Either that or, as I noted with iwannaplato, at least make an effort to compare and contrast my own  misunderstandings with your own corrections.