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

Oisin Deery*, Eddy Nahmias*

*Corresponding author for this work

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    3 Citations (Scopus)

    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.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)451-471
    Number of pages21
    JournalPhilosophical Studies
    Volume180
    Issue number2
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - Feb 2023

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Why the manipulation argument fails: determinism does not entail perfect prediction'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this