[stareatgoats]

Agree it's about word meanings, and superimposing different meanings of the same word on each other (often in an attempt to close any cracks in our worldview that might allow religious concepts to take hold). That's probably why "free will" discussions are such a mess.

> In practice, what tends to be really relevant are questions like: are criminals responsible for their actions?

Exactly what I've landed in too, i.e. does free will have any real every-day meaning. The answer must be an unequivocal "yes", otherwise questions like these would be meaningless (which they are not):

- "did they force you to take that apple or did you do it of your own free will?"

- "was the sex voluntary or were you forced?".

- etc

The problematic word/concept here is really "force" and the different meanings of that word. The force of causality is fundamentally different from the force of coercion, and they can not be used interchangeably.

And so the question of "free will" should really be disentangled from physics, once and for all.

[naasking]

> And so the question of "free will" should really be disentangled from physics, once and for all.

Welcome to Compatibilism!

[stareatgoats]

Yeah, maybe. Although (from what I can see) compatibilism is more like carving a niche for free will in an otherwise deterministic universe. I find that the "deterministic universe" is a concept without sufficient empirical support. It is a nebulous abstraction of reality, a faith good as any, but even as such it has a structure (a meaning) that disqualifies it from interfering with any practical notion of "free will" as outlined above.

A more pertinent question is really why the question (of whether "free will" exists) is posed at all. I find that it is often for anti-religious reasons, sometimes for moral responsibility evasion, and sometimes because people want to avoid the all too common cases where a single individual (or group of) is chastised when other factors (like circumstances, other people's actions) are just as important. The former two I don't care for much, that latter is more likable, even if none of them accomplish what they seek using this line of reasoning IMO.

[naasking]

> A more pertinent question is really why the question (of whether "free will" exists) is posed at all.

Good question. See my reply to this post for an answer: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18608440

[gpderetta]

I think this practical definition is quite interesting, useful, and worth discussing about, but I suspect that most people have a more nebulous, metaphisical idea of free will.