>Compatibilists are just switching the subject. Sure we can make sense of choice, responsibility, punishment, useful counterfactual reflection on previous choices etc. but that's not what people really care about. We're talking about the ability to have done otherwise under the exact same conditions.
>But Sam according to QM we might actually have that ability, if people for some reason think it is needed.
>No, that's not free will.
On the topic of free will he's a pseud faggot changing his own definition to reach the desired conclusion. He even hypocritically pretends sometimes that it's an empirical question the Libet experiments provide evidence against, to give his arguments more scientific appearance, yet then when those experiments are questioned he goes back to defining free will out of existence, however the universe turns out or could have turned out to be. I guess he's just too attached to the smug feeling of "disproving" an "illusion" commoners beneath him believe in.
