https://twitter.com/obruchez/status/443122524961116160
First of all, I'm glad Alice and Bob have finally given up trying to send encrypted messages to each other, and are now devoting their time to more important questions. :)
I think you're using a strawman, here. Bob sounds stupider than he should be. :) Ok, I won't talk for Bob. I'll talk for myself, as I'm a hard determinist. So, yes, in the past, the coin could not have landed tails and, in the future, it could land tails. I think this distinction between thought experiments in the past or in the future is probably pretty obvious to any hard determinist (it is to Harris, at least). Actually, when you ask yourself "could I have avoided this collision?", there are two things that are implied, not one: 1) something is slightly different, and 2) we're in the future, not in the past.
Maybe, like Harris, I'm a "compatibilist in everything but name".
So, again, we should be clear about what we mean by "could".
About Alice, Bob, and Carol being all right: this is very Disneyesque. They can't all be right about reality (ontology). It seems to me that you're playing with words. I don't know about Bob and Carol, but Alice at least is only partially right. After all, can you really be right when you're ignorant and don't say "I don't know"? In her defense, she actually seems very wise, abstaining from commenting after realizing that she's ignorant, but this is not very representative of what happens in the real world. In the real world, ignorant people have strong opinions. All the time. Worst of all, their opinion matters, as has become painfully obvious in Switzerland (February 9, 2014 vote on immigration). But this is only one example among many.
You seem to think hard determinists are more likely to be skeptics (i.e. insist that alternative medicine, religion, astrology, conspiracy theories, etc. are wrong). Do you think it is true or was it just an anecdotal facet of Bob?
My opinion on this point is that it is always useful to have the most accurate model of reality. It's what allows you to make the best choices. And to have the least negative impact on society. This applies to everything, so, yes, I tend to have strong, negative opinions about alternative medicine, religion, libertarian free will, and pseudosciences in general. I do believe it matters. Especially in democracies. But also anytime somebody's opinion can affect others (political leaders, company CEOs/managers, etc.).
I have two final questions for you. The first one is the following: do you think that people who believe in libertarian free will don't have any negative influence on the world? Don't you agree, at least partly, with Miessler's "Free Will vs. Determinism as the Core of Political Disagreement" post?
And my second question (or meta-question :): why do you have so much interest in free will, if you don't think "most people" are wrong on the subject or if you think that it doesn't really matter that they are wrong?
https://twitter.com/avernet/status/439268046176124928
https://twitter.com/avernet/status/439463260228554752
https://twitter.com/avernet/status/439465220054859776
New post: "Could the coin have landed tails?" #FreeWill https://medium.com/p/a94fee12bd4d
"I'd also like to think more about the implications of understanding determinism on one's moral values. I have a feeling they are not as significant as Harris and Miessler would like to make us believe."