Why the manipulation argument fails: determinism does not entail perfect prediction

Philosophical Studies 180 (2):451-471 (2022)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Determinism is frequently understood as implying the possibility of perfect prediction. This possibility then functions as an assumption in the Manipulation Argument for the incompatibility of free will and determinism. Yet this assumption is mistaken. As a result, arguments that rely on it fail to show that determinism would rule out human free will. We explain why determinism does not imply the possibility of perfect prediction in any world with laws of nature like ours, since it would be impossible for an agent to predict with certainty any future event that is causally influenced by events outside her own backward light cone yet inside the backward light cone of the future event. This is the _light-cone limit_ and it undermines the Manipulation Argument or limits what this argument can tell us about the relevance of determinism to free will. We also respond to objections that the light-cone limit is irrelevant to the Manipulation Argument.

Author Profiles

Eddy Nahmias
Georgia State University
Oisín Deery
York University

Analytics

Added to PP
2022-08-12

Downloads
537 (#28,961)

6 months
254 (#8,443)

Historical graph of downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.
How can I increase my downloads?